HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/12/1990 - RegularAN t
'~
2 Ar'
~unf ~f ~ ,a~n~ ~
~a ~~
~ESOlIICENTEM~~'~
. e..wrw,e~~~~
ROANORE COONTY BOARD OF SIIPERVISORS
ACTION AGENDA
JIINE 12, 1990
u~.u~nu cm
1
~•9.8~9
Welcome to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors meeting.
Regular meetings are held on the second Tuesday and the fourth
Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. Public Hearings will be heard at~7:00 p.m
on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Deviations from this
schedule will be announced.
THERE WILL BE A POBLIC HEARING AT THIS AFTERNOON'S SESSION.
A. OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 P.K.)
1. Roll Call.
HCN ABSENT AT 3:05 P.M.
2. Invocation:
The Reverend Fleet Powell
Colonial Presbyterian Church
3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag.
B. REQOESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF
AGENDA ITEMB.
LBE ADDED ITEM E-5, PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CONSOLIDATION
AGREEMENT
C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLIITIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Recognition of Timothy Gubala for being certified
as an Industrial/Economic Developer.
TIM GIIBALA PRESENT
2. Recognition of Iris Groff for receiving the
1
ACTION N0. r
ITEM NUMBER
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: June 12, 1990
AGENDA ITEM: Recognition of Iris ,.Groff for Receiving the
Meritorious Service Award from the State Department
of Social Services
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
BACKGROUND•
On May 23, 1990, Larry D. Jackson, Commissioner for the
Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Social Services, presented
to Iris S. Groff, Supervisor of Family and Children's Services for
the County of Roanoke's Department of Social Service, the State's
Meritorious Service Award. Ms. Groff was nominated by several of
the professionals who she has trained over the past 24 years. Ms.
Groff is very much a child advocate and a strong supporter of
children and family services and she continues to provide
unmeasured benefit to Roanoke County, the community and the Human
Service Agencies with which she has become involved.
The certificate from the State reads as follows: "From the
Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Social Services, Office of
the Commissioner, Meritorious Service Award, presented to Iris S.
Groff.
Unselfish dedication marks the 24 year social service career
of Iris S. Groff, Supervisor of Family and Children's Services for
the Roanoke County Department of Social Services.
Mrs. Groff has supervised and trained 23 social workers during
her tenure at Roanoke County, representing a myriad of programs,
including protective services, ADC services, employment services,
custody investigations, day care and parent programs. Some of the
social workers she had trained have gone on to supervisory
positions themselves. All have Iris to thank for learning the
rewards of social service.
A life-long child advocate and strong supporter of children's
services, Mrs. Groff helped to develop and participate in the first
multi-disciplinary team in the Roanoke Valley area for the
prevention of child abuse and neglect. A tireless volunteer, Mrs.
Groff's time and energy have always been available to any agency,
organization, fund-raising project or colleague.
For the devotion of her entire career to the improvement of
~' -.~"
social service programs, and the dignity she accords clients and
co-workers alike, Iris S. Groff is presented with a Meritorious
Service Award from the Virginia Department of Social Services."
Signed: Larry D. Jackson, Commissioner, May 23, 1990.
Mrs . Groff and a eawardu for acknowledgement) bysthel Board lof
be present with th
Supervisors.
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACT:
RECOMMENDATION•
Respectfully submitted, Approv~d by,
'~~ ,~j
~ John M. Chambliss, Jr. Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
Assistant Administrator _
--------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
No Yes Abs
Approved ( ) Motion by: dd
Denied ( ) E y
Johnson
Received ( ) McGraw
Referred ( ) Nickens
To ( ) Robers
ACTION NO.
ITEM NUMBER
-- l
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: June 12, 1990
AGENDA ITEM: Work Session on Spring Hollow Reservoir and
request for authorization to proceed with rate
and feasibility study.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
During the budget work sessions, the Board instructed staff to
prepare a plan for the financing of the Spring Hollow Water
Project. Staff has worked closely with the engineering firm of
Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern and the financial advisor, Wheat,
First Securities, Inc., to prepare this plan.
Representatives of both firms will participate, along with County
staff, in the work session on June 12« Additional information will
be available for the Board's review at that time.
tj /y
r.~. f
-~t-~.~e.~. 1 ~r'~'~'^
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
------------------------------------------
Approved ( )
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred ( )
To ( )
Motion by:
ACTION VOTE
No Yes Abs
Eddy
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
Robers
Action Number
A-61290-1
Item Number D-1
AT A REGIILAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SIIPERVISORS OF ROANORE COIINTY,
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COIINTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: June 12, 1990
SUBJECT: Request for Authorization to Proceed
with the Spring Hollow Water Project
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
During the budget work sessions, the Board instructed staff to prepare a
plan for the financing of the Spring Hollow Water Project. Staff has
worked closely with the engineering firm of Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern
and the financial advisor, Wheat, First Securities, Inc., to prepare this
plan. Representatives of both firms will participate, along with County
staff, in the work session on June 12. The Project is engineeringly sound
and financially feasible, and staff recommends proceeding with the entire
Project at this time.
THE PROJECT'
Most of our previous discussions have centered around the reservoir
itself, with the addition of a treatment plant and distribution system at
a later time. Based on favorable engineering reports, staff now
recommends proceeding with the Project in its entirety. The Spring Hollow
Water Project consists of the following components:
23 MGD reservoir $, 33.0 million
8 MGD treatment plant 9.0 million
Transmission/distribution system 6.5 million
Additional costs 5.0 million
$ 53.5 million
Using the new roller-compacted concrete dam, construction of the reservoir
can be completed on a faster schedule.
FINANCING'
A report will be presented at the Board Meeting which was prepared by
Wheat, First Securities showing that the County is in a strong position
to issue bonds for this project. Existing debt is low, and the Board has
done much to establish sound financial policies and a stable fund balance.
-2-
Existing bonds are rated Aa/AA, which is only one step from the coveted
Aaa/AAA rating.
The report from Wheat, First Securities shows that there is a variety of
financing alternatives available. After a review of all alternatives, the
County can structure the debt issue in the most advantageous way. Based
upon preliminary scenarios, the annual debt service for the first year
could range from $2.8 million to $4.7 million, depending upon the method
selected.
The new debt service could be covered by-a combination of transfers from
the General Fund, new growth, and increases in connection fees and rates.
For information purposes, the County can generate an additional $1.8
million annually by increasing utility taxes to the level of those in
Roanoke City. By using County water rather than purchasing water, we can
avoid a portion of the $360,000 annual surcharge now being paid to Roanoke
City and Salem.
Wheat, First Securities, Inc. recommends that an independent rate study
be conducted to determine the best combination of fee and rate adjust-
ments. Staff prefers to withhold a recommendation for increases until
October when this analysis has been completed.
UTILITY RATES AND CONNECTION FEES:
Several Board members have expressed an interest in discussing the current
utility connection fees. Staff is prepared to do so on June 12 if the
Board wishes. Some increases in the fees will be required to fund the
project. I prefer not to make any changes in fees or rates until the
consultant completes the Rate Study. If there are some objectives that
the Board wishes to incorporate into the rate study, we should agree on
them at the work session.
SCHEDULE-
Attachment 2 is a proposed schedule prepared by the staff; Hayes, Seay,
Mattern & Mattern; and Wheat, First Securities, Inc; It is an aggressive
but realistic schedule, considering the complexity of the issues. Please
note that bonds will be sold late in April, 1991, and. construction can
begin in that same time period.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
At this time, I recommend that Roanoke County proceed with the funding and
construction of the Spring Hollow Water Project according to the schedule
in Attachment 2. To do so, the Board needs to recognize that it will be
necessary to revise utility rates and fees following the completion of a
Rates and Feasibility Study in October, 1990. Permission is requested to:
[1] Hire a Rate and Feasibility Consultant. An appropriation will be
required in July, after proposals are received.
-3-
[2] Proceed with preparation of other documents necessary to sell bonds.
[3] Proceed with preparation of the required Capital Improvement Program
to coincide with the rate study and issuance of bonds.
This is one of the most important projects in the future of the County and
the entire Valley. The Board is to be commended on its foresight and
perseverance. Your continued support will be greatly appreciated.
SUBMITTED BY:
t~'t/
Elmer C. Hodge
Roanoke County Adm
ohn Hubbard
Assistant County Adm
A C T I O N
Approved (x) Motion
Denied ( ) Bob L.
Received ( ) rp ocee
Ref erred s tudy
to
V O T E
by; Robers
Johnson moved to approve McGraw
ding wit rate an ease ilit~ddy
Johnson
Nickens
cc: File
John Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator
Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance
Reta Busher, Director, Management & Budget
Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering
Cliff Craig, Director, Utilities
Diane D. Hyatt,
Director, Finance
Yes No Abseni
x
x
x
x
x
ATTACHMENT 1
County of Roanoke, Virginia
spring Hollow Water Project
Proposed Debt Structure
The County has obtained voter approval for issuing approximately $15
million of General Obligation Bonds to fund a portion of this Project.
An additional $40 million will be needed to fully fund the Project, as
presently designed.
It is recommended that the County pursue the following financing options
in determining the most efficient overall financing plan for the Spring
Hollow Water Project. This recommendation is based on information which
has been reviewed to date and which will be refined and changed, as
needed, based on the results of the study to be conducted by the Rate
and Feasibility Consultant.
[1] Issue $15 million of General Obligation Bonds to support the Spring
Hollow Water Project. Those Bonds should be rated as Aa/AA,
reflecting the overall credit strength of the County. It is not
recommended at this time that the County seek Municipal Bond
Insurance on this portion of the Debt.
[2] Issue $40 million of Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds to support the
Spring Hollow Water Project. Those Bonds, assuming adequate rate
coverage, should be rated as an A/A obligation. It is recommended
that the County pursue Municipal Bond Insurance for this issue
while continuing to pursue the VRA as a possible financing vehicle.
[3J The Revenue Bonds will receive a gross pledge of the Water and
Sewer Revenues, and the payment of the Debt Service on those Bonds
will come ahead of the payment on Debt Service from the previously
issued General Obligation Bonds.
[4] The County should establish adequate water and sewage rates which
would be sufficient to pay all operation and maintenance expenses
and all Debt Service costs on the Revenue Bonds and General
Obligation Bonds. To assist the County in. establishing those
rates, it is recommended that a Rate and Feasibility Consultant be
retained to review the ability of the County to support its
existing debt, this proposed debt issuance, and to support all
future CIP projects.
[5] The County would issue Revenue Bonds sufficient to fully fund a
Debt Service Reserve Fund. In addition, the County should agree
to replenish any drawdowns on this Reserve Fund within six months
of the draw. That replenishment would be subject to annual
appropriation by the Board of Supervisors.
ATTACHMENT 2
Suggested Financing Timetable
June 12, 1990
Participants
BS Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
CS Roanoke County Staff
CE Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern (Consulting Engineer)
FA Wheat, First Securities, Inc. (Financial Advisor)
BC McGuire Woods Battle & Boothe (Bond Counsel and General
FC Rate and Feasibility Consultant (to be named)
UW Underwriter (to be named)
UC Underwriter's Counsel
TR Trustee (to be named)
ounsel)
Date Event Participants
6/12/90 Briefing meeting for County Supervisors All Parties
6/18/90 Continue discussion with VRA on financing FA, CS
6/22/90 Issue Request for Proposals for Rate and
Feasibility Consultants FA, CS
7/10/90 Rate and Feasibility Consultant proposals due FA, CS
7/16/90 Rate and Feasibility Consultant selected CS, BS
Present proposed financing plan to County
Administrator for review
Week of Working Group meeting with Rate and Feasibility FA, CS,
7/23/90 Consultant to begin their independent evaluation CE, BC
10/90 Board meeting to include an update on the
Project and approval of Request for Proposal
for Underwriters
11/1/90 Issue Request for Proposal for Underwriters FA, CS
11/15/90 Underwriters proposals due to County --'
11/30/90 Select underwriting team CS, BS
Month of 1] Draft Feasibility Study for financing in
12/90 circulation for review FC
-2-
2] Initiate development of bond documents BC
3] Continue discussions with bond insurers; BC, CS,
arrange meetings in Roanoke County FA, UW
4] Continue discussion with VRA (as necessary) CS
5] Initiate discussions with rating agencies CS, FA,
if applicable UW
6] Adopt Capital Improvements Plan
1/91 Board meeting to include a progress report on
the financing structure and discussion of
preliminary findings on the Feasibility Study
and ramifications on the current and proposed
rates
Authorize request for construction bids
Month of Working Group meetings to assemble necessary All Parties
2/91 documentation for Bond Sale
2/91 & Selected Events:
3/91
1] Finalize Feasibility Study FC
2] Submit draft of bond documents to appropriate BC, UC
financial parties (e.g., bond insurers,
rating agencies, VRA)
3] Select ancillary parties to the transaction BS, FA,
(e.g., bond trustee)
3/15/91 Receipt of construction bids
4/9/91 Tentative Bond Sale CS, FA, UW
4/91 Board meeting to authorize the entering into CS, FA, UW
of a Bond Purchase Agreement
Week of (Tentative) Close on the transaction; location All Parties
4/23/91 to be determined
ACTION # A-61290-2
ITEM NUMBER ~ ' ~
AT A REGGLARA HELDNAT THEHROANO D COUNTYEADMINISTRATION CENTER
COUNTY, VIR
MEETING DATE: June 12, 1990
AGENDA ITEM: Funding Allocation for Utility Capital Projects
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS/: n
BACKGROUND'
The Utility Department Capital Improvement Program was adopted
as part of the 1986/1991 County Capital Improvement Plan. Funds
are allotted from the water and sewer funded Depreciation Fund to
cover the costs of the program.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Water - Funded Depreciation
The following water pro Board a compl to list uofythencurrent
are included to provide the
projects .
Sugarloaf Farms
Geiser Road-Grander
Wendover Drive
Western Hills
Woodland Drive
Buck Mt./Upland Game
(Tanglewood Pump Sta.)
Previously Funded Total
$114,500
26,000
52,000
48,000
46,000
70.000
$356~50~
The following water projects need to be added to the above
list and allocation made to provide funding:
VDOT Road Projects (Adjust/relocate lines) $ 40,000
50.000
Highfields Subdivision
90 000
Total Added From Current Fund
-~ /
Sanitary Sewer - Funded Depreciation
All currently funded sanitary sewer projects have been
completed or are under construction. The following list of
sanitary sewer replacement projects included in the Capital
Improvement Program require funds to be allocated in the priority
listed:
Grandin Road Sewer $ 40,000
Barrens Road Sewer 85,000
State Route 11-North 30,000
I81/Richfield 90,000
VDOT Highway Project-Replace 50,000
200.000
Replacement with SSE/R Program
Total Funded by Funded Depreciation 495 000
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve funding
for the above projects from the funds indicated and in the priority
listed for each fund.
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED:
~~
Cliffo raig, P.E Elmer C. Hodg
Utility Director County Administrator
Approved (x )
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred
to
ACTION
Motion by: °^ti- T TnhnG~n to
P funding Eddy
approv Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
Robers
cc: File
Cliff Craig, Director, Utilities
Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance
Reta Busher, Director, Management & Budget
VOTE
No
Yes Abs ent
~_
x
x
x
tE#i(pt~IFr tY~p == " ~y, '~'~'~4!Kgxt~o ~ v ~7n w.:,~ "-°__.~` ~'~r~:.1 ~airti r 1loDy .-.
_~ Yom' ! v~~y~~17~ p t J"'_~~«lli(w`ilni~Eir1 ~tlffr 4 ~'4!I
= .,_ ~~~c~ ~4 x5a?wa5~,~'a"~ ] i~oi 1.~• ~I ~q~ll~~~s~ ,~
7 i! ~ 1 ~ O
Ir ~ ,au '~ W/fd
.~ Pj° ,'.419 _. ~ ~.
W s
MN MR1S1j , ~ ', ^ ~ ~ RE[ ; VICIIVITI' MAP„, ., I _ ,,~'
;
e _ tv,iTHP _
I
N 'NlI
Cir t
F' IS / ' - t
1707 18 MM '. l
~ ~/ t!/I 86 1717 Z 32
~ n ` NI7 ~ f
_ ,'
1 - 19 /1q1 ..^ '",y 4717 ,•• ,. ~. f ~~
~ ~ L,M - .., a7Na :. ~.
riot ~ ~ n za ?9 x 3o s
esu 7 - ~'~ \., 4lou 26 aat an4 .7n ,~ -;:
t!!l tfte SI • i , 41 {: '{ ` ,~a7sv ~ 7 ~ 4
/ ~~ S .wl. .a o- . , an/ S
sfv .d ' { J/ ,^\~ ~!D!a ...~, 25 Lp l' ~~ ~r. +O1 ~ a701 \
! ~ / two ,y0 • a ~ 42 \~ .awe * , 1! aJ 9 8 - ~'?
lsat / .` ~ ,~ s. ~~,yatn ~/' 24 12 ar7 ~.a I wol + ms ono \
'~ 2 ~ 1 \
W s-
Gof; I h ~ 4S. awr \~\ialla awl IL ~ ~ f Qt! 17
' rool47 ~ asw , 21 ~ -4 6 I 9 ~ i 9,
me fir-, - -~ - zo ' •? . '' s ° to a° ~ '
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~=~~a .f ~ aM ~~ 4 a X44 ~ ~, 18 I~14 !
• _' ~ Ig ~ 17 ~ ~ II 6 ~ + ~ 7 11 ° 4
I • vn l} s
24 o L 20 p ''
JF a 8 ww, I~ 8 `,~ •,~ 16 `
0'
1 b 14 '' •
J $ ~ I i 2.tir! ~ '~b may. • 2 •~ • i a a `f' ~ ~ 24^~' ~ IS " ,
~ s ,~
{ n f
L ~! ,
2y 17 ~ 7~ '».. ra f a 3 i ~ ' ' f'.
~ zs ~ ~ aS ~ 'a 5 ~ ~~
~ ,w, 3z ~ r ,, :, 9 10 ~r i2 ~ f g
•- ,a..a 'yi 33 34 ~i , .- ~ 0 28 , •, 0 11 •~ 'ai
\~ v • ~ a " 3S yv ~ ~~' ~ti ' ~'e
\ .~ 3B ~ •4 + i L rbyry ~Z 20 iaG- ~ 4
\ ,• 'yo ~ 39 ~ yea 19
)/ C,f4 36 '''+ \ \ ,I~ sayls w .•~ 6 yl6 l?? `~~ a v
d ,~ . " a ~~ ~~ ~ . P Y 7 ~ 22 26" ~`
3,i~ ROQ4 \ s ~' r 2a
~~ ° .~
bd a
r $ , 33 ' ~ S s a ~ sus *, 1 >Ra! ~ ` ! 24' d - ~ ~ 29 ,
SIIGARLO~ FARMS WATER PROJECT
COMMUNITY SBRVICBS ..
AND DBVBLOPMBNT
~ \\~\0\y~W ~~~ fONiMNC~ ~~M y,~yf• •• / lpyCl
/0 - \ St~-_Jy~n~M ~ .-1 •S MUVnNffi
y ` ` ~`V Itl
erg ~ cr• .g . .r moo` 8 1 '.
trait "i°5 F ~ ~ _ _-
• d'.. M v
~j Lr
r r g~ ~ '•~ •• 419 _ ~ t.
4 c p 8 :__
.i ~, any ~~a `r`°~'~d?0"~• '~• f~• _"
~' ~ ~ ~~
i'~ plE OCK~cuy~~C,~~ w!~D~'rb ~~ ~~
~ (yRTMU QR. D. `~
~~'°r'r VI'CINIT'Y MAP•' M . ~ -'
,~ ~~
' f~ ~
NORTS
- _ . ` •
r 1 qt 1698
~
~~ ti
s+ »
7 f NO! ~ / ~ i
~"
I•,', ~
\J
I7
9 ~
' /
9
10 a e` 22 ~ ''.~,
~
as ~ ~
~~ 'E°
e '
~ e ~
r
Via,
.~{-` ~'
:;'
t
~,
21 .~~e a~ ~
~ 15
4 ,
' ~
e
~
2
~
fi
1~
~
W ,ai
ss n ~ ~
~~~' 25 I ~~
' '~ 4.
~`
s ~ t ~ ~- ~,5~ t ~
~
•, - ~ 13
.6
`
M tl 1: r
1 8 3
V `. i
9
Oti ~~ s
~
~
•
f,
00
9 '
-
'
3 b 4
a
.
12
a•
6
~
''
ID ~~
`
~~
. ~
titi ,a 21 v., a
sx~r . 1
•,
9 e~~
1 a
~ ~~
o
20 :ice '
~ •~; '~r w;•'~,
,a ° I 12 . s ~,
~
2
a 9 •.j• 19 , r
t~
-
'~ t 18
t ~ 13 F ~'
- _
~
'
a~ ~
- ~ ~ -. ~
t a,,, s, ?
6 'e ~~
t
\ ~
~
~~
•
,
i
17
a , 26
27
-
?~
, ~ ~ ~ _ .: ,fir,
a ~~ '
~~ , rr 37
;lsp ao p
~
~ d a A
'
` J7j9 • j •~1~ / "W Y • ~
'r
~ d q ~QOf,~
fix/ rf 38
~
y
• ' .
' Y x'
^
~
~
I
~
. 000 •
~
~•
~
'^
'r
O/ .
a 39 ,~
-
~ ~ 3
w
0
'
~30 ~ `•'?
24
~
r~
1 ti~ 3 t
s' 4
3
~" D /
.; /
'60AG ~ ~ ~ ~~~'~ ~ ~
•
'/ ~..
2
r
~9
~
_-
(
COMMUNITY SERVICRS GIESER RD ~ GRANDER WATER PROJECT
AND DgVBLOPM>sNT
,~ '~
NORTH
~~
.E~l
NORTH
I
-
,.
~
- ~.
~.
~~~
-~
M ~ ~'
s ~,
~ ~
~ -` q ~ ok~ ri ~
NN ,.,,, ~ l.M
J•nJ I >•; Z 1
.
. -
, f ,
afvr a>rf J~
« JJN S ~ ~
„, ~ ,.
.
~
~ Nr
~ JlN ~
af
lsrJ
JfJr 9 0
~.II ~
ryJarr f -
-
afN
~ II p
13 i I
JJN `
~ M
t 2 IYYGJ n
r .. rW
n
"
~ •
t 2t
2 JW
8 ~ 3Z
70
-3
S
q 1 ~ 3~ 2s
~ ~ 2i
fP - „f M
h r
y-
~ •
1 g
17 ~
~
i • m 21
11r~
Jµf lf>I Jflr 2 ~ r
• y
Nq JNJ Jrr
2
t~
ti
lr i ~ ~: If pf'
1 ~
I..
•
~ p.
pwrboar _
rJN +
?.,LLB. •~,,,,
...
Nb JNJ atN
!YJ t
`~ J~ ~, OIrMMoa
1 ~~ ~~
JIN J1W JJN
NN
JJN JNr J
~ N„
M•
~[
.i~ • r
J . r' pM 2
1 M 13
E ~S k W 10 3P
nei
~
s.
~ s
o ~
»N
~ - .
z
yn
. M_ 3
O e
11
i / .
J.. • - ~,, .p. ~ . ~,•
q ',,
• 7
e JMJ ~
rap. " ~ s ~'` ~ nN ~i'
r~ / ~`' ~
e ~f.
s t ~ ~ rF
.•"°, ~ ~ ~
~ aw
' a ~` ~ • ~ O
37
• x Jpr ~ ,.•. z ~
a ~+,
.rr ~ r r
• ~ • JfM~. ~ • N •. '
~ \ ~ JJ07
3/ ayA ~ ~ •, ~•
s ~
• ~ >•N ~ ~ rpI IZ -
1
t
1
c ca
Y ~• i
~ ~
yam? '~ ~TI
EE
. ~ MTS ^ M ~
EEE
9`, )dap •v
a
V /
~~,iia
'C]~ J."~ ....+^
o- ra ~
+uwX[
I ~ j_,
i ~~, b
~ \ti,~ , ,/ ...
~ N ~ ~
/
~
A wrllFna ~~lE~~ r
,
i. , ~ _~wW/''~~~I ~ ,;(/ANN
~ .~-_., ~ f ~
~
~ & ~' 1Y
w v
Ve ~` ~ 4f
t~ ~ ~ ~~ J
~~/~~ ~a~ }
.~ , f ~ ~
~jl
r ~ ~ ~a.5~; ~4 u = ,~~~, 4 NORTH
t ~
~ ,;~~ L
VICINITY MAP', _,"~ .,~
_' ,
~~ .may ,,
RI. 720
e ,M.e. .... ; ~ 27
~
'
I ? a ,.
R~°
1 2
.4 ]xo)
SIl ,,al yrI
`I ~ ~ G~ 4 t tH ~
$ ~~ ~ p]4 ;S ' .a ~ 2g
~~ O 6 '~•9 21 ' )x]) ~ 3214
~ It
O
Q~
.
c ]]~~ ~'~ '', aaa
~'
.
c;i P t.
]~T ~
°
i.
]
_
. )za) SI az]o
z ,
~, '
~
_ ~~~ ~
~
9 ~ :~ 21
. ~3 / un 33 ~ .p
ry ~ as +!,,a
~''i ;
_ lea
r
34
10 § r 20 ~ ]zas
a
o 3)+a 2
'
~
V
.
O
.~ ,b
]]1) ~~4 yy ]x]N
~~
+
°~
. 16 s
_ 1 r S3 12 ~.a ]zTr :'{ S9 0 ~`~
,a r"
,~ a
... ~'' ~-4 17 p. e o
~
~ ~.) ~ )xf0 .
~ Q 13 i
)aos ~ - z
^ti 3r S2 -, ua) w 16 4f
~
s
A>. an
y
e' qO )sea ~
)))7
42 a
n ~
~~
N
~lO a )R] .~ »o.
nw ~ - .. i,a '~ 43
~)Nf ,J+ 44 y ]]ea
e ~n ~ ~ M )]z4S ]]~a
„, ]a
4! )53046 "
" y]aa 1 47 z
p
s33a a
S7~e ~
2] K
~ SB
Kn.pY M Pr/bx o/ gpyyfl
~\ S TO ~< ,
\Rt 6Bl .~~ ~ ~Ogdan ~ ~ Road ~ ~~
Cp
R~
~s c~
C
°
4
e
+. ~r
s., ,
~
. ~
~
COMMUNITY SERVICES WOOD~xD DR WATER PROJECT
AND DEVELOPMENT
"~
' - ~ ~ ~~ ~ I IO Ac \'
eac lCl dli II
30.1 N ,\ ~;)~ac
II 4
°j 8
117ac IDI ~ 13 \
,~ ~ • I Oa aclCl s 00 S
! ~ 29 IIq 10 14 ~. \
995 ac ~Ol e° .,
b)/4c kl % I SIAC ~ v •06 .,• xy ~
! . ^/
Isle 15 .x!•01 ~
~ IOOac 16 ! ~• `p
~~` RELOCATED "°„ ,•~ !'°'25 ` f 12 ~
,._,
°° SEWER LINE 36 ~,; e`°''~'° a
r '~ .! °!
2. •,sx le xr ! d s' za
,, b s'. •yt PQd •15 x
/ x •• , ! '271
JJt! ,,>• °s r 31 rx t •. • ~ 5•It , e t6
r"'x ~•" 32 35 b +` 22 ,,,x .°j '~ Q° nM1 lalac
.x+x 33 - x
54r Mop •• ls7r Jlsa ~ !'~20 •_' 27
76.06-1-9 ,. 34 J•s, ^ 33 2f c
I., ~ i,xts « ,... ~ 1 ~~4, c - a ~ i .
~~ '~ !•fi -. 0 J e, rx ,0 ,, r••1 323 ' r ' F ~
•,o+ jdod~ ...,, ~ i•~J `' x' 31 ,•' 4 28 , vo ` 17
V~ r .
. 6 4 u~ Mbr ~ ~0 an .
JIM7 i Jlfit^ 3 Or >. n~ 29 r 8
s Jlal Y NJr '" \ fS~
~u
it e x ~, e ? ~ J,~s °' 18
3 +~ • ' JI/t '9a 1 a
a ,
~p _ / 2 974c IDI
146nc 12 ~~ 1i 14 IS • >h 2 J~3 ~ ` Y ).71 AC 1c1
?IQ J18 JIJ/ .
h 6 . ro, ~ ' / 0 5
Y ,,,~ 17 -,x Jlut ,pti g
x°o, t117 ~ ~ x ' +
aQ 1 JIt) 9 r ~xxn _
y '+a 4 JI/J 26 fo SQTi y.- c •+`~ v
_ _ STORMWA ER "` ? ~" I
23 „ i.oJ s _ 17 16 - -
DRAIN S STEM "• '~ - _- 16 * ~°
29
a ~ ? '' 19 ~ x sJr/ sin
i0l 6. D4tf ~ `~' JIG/ 2D x,5717 S!A Jf[7 ' A
'• - 22 O Ipi' t o Jig sJ7J ., •x
i gpac 66. 'i xo +• ~~ .~
rr ......~. .ra 24 21 ` ~~ ~ RI 686 -
r a ~ !/H r 199 K JMI ~ .~' .
lltt
~ J71~ I JSTI J.!!I ~ 4J
• »a ', `S/Or, / ~JIOt~ J7lI l.71! ~~41 I L2 43 JJa.
x x r „x ., ~ ~ 40
d I7Y n' '
s x„\'2S c 4 ~ i/IS Z lo°x x}7 ~ ~' , ~
•rx I ~ r. bN b• peJ x)i MO•
,ac . /Its »xe ba u • / 36 f 35 I I ~ nY'~ n I 'y ,r
ill/•
d
1 ~ Jwo ~ .26 ~ 6 a• w ~ rrot / j` '',4 33 32
' ° ms ~ <+_• r°,. ~ ro /4!0 /~ JZ 31 30 1I 29 =
.~ '~' a a`~ Iz 7° ~ /a.
x 27 na , ,,• e . 8 I~ ~ `~ Br14/4 w "'~w aJf ,~
f. ~ } 8/ e /10i ~ ~ c.f u
ilJ° { II 'w I. R' It/I ~ ~ to
? IQJ M
- 9 I>Qe r ~ - Jtn ~` f ~ I a Itii la7r ~ /rJ.4' I
r luJ 6 n»
t /ar! 8
` Oo7 !0 - 15 / 24 c I - 9
r I• _ p/I v .! ~ /mss
~ • ~ u. ~ ' : 'ar , :.. ~ ~ .•/ ;r w ~ »~r w ,' I ''u xc•.In. ,y c, ^
' .~ :~ L nil nr°~, Ids ~y 22 ~I 21 - 20 _ 19 - 18 I_ 16 1S .~ b
x+° ,u26 8 24 ~I ~ -d~. K~ - - nso - /iJS % /7s: ~~ 1)ss '~~-. _E ! 23_ t
i _ _ _ ~ -_. ...
COMMUNITY SERVICES GRANDIN RD SEWER/STORMWATER
AND DBVELOPMENT
___.-~ «,.~v~ __. __...,.~`.. 671 - ~~ `w-„~. s o~\ ~
~~ f BEAR \
A lt~~`~w`~iLE`~~ ~ ~~I ((( 3 \ 'cS
1 `'VF ~ y j~\~ A
.~
~ RICN uN
~'
L ' ° ~ V~' /lpT LUIS
~Ly yrr~ft ~ p ~~ p ~~ ~ I~OVS~ILL
~,. ~~~ ~ , O ~ --. : ; ~
/ ,~;..
mar ~ ~~. ~ \ / ~
exT t~'r: y \ 8D r:. \\\
~~
axiLC rarvs ~~~ ~ ~~VICINITY MAP
~f X~T~ ~ ~-C P ,.. \
~ +,~;nn
i°
NORTB
m _ '~< - ..
aD`'~ BE~y H^vc'ty ~ '-' O ~ °_ -9P y`~ "QD ~yh~'~~P `:o~'~r pw• ~ _ /+-~ -'.+
c L-~
{{~~r~~- /~-,~~ @p ago
• •,
fAN h
~f N ~~ ~~a~~ Wy~/~"~L~[~~ ~ ~ ~~r' ~ .~04o~'L 'l\~jJ.ERD ,V `.a~V- ,
`~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~"~ / "~~ ~~.. CSC` w0 MNUGN ~.
0 J p0 ~' V ~~ r wwrw E >~=.
d$~y ~ "~h ~ ~I 5 MMERDEAN
9
o•- Gy ~"
~. ~[~~ ~W_~G~ `~ cps \i O~SUNNYBAOOK ~~~
`~9° $`~l, ~~~ - -`VICINITY MAP NORTH
,,..,
oJY! 24 I ~~ S 03 Ac
' 1
• +'o . r
r
4
281
247 / Cwrnnow A 6J5 Ac
MO! Y,Irro~vl
//iMf1
:w.wd~ Ln//SAOn d MifLppry
°~ aa~onn Ln„rcn
u~; i° lsos P/0 2713-4-2
'~~ ~ 28.3 r~ +' , f ~I00
J ? '~ 28.4 ~~
l~ ` 4 9
~! l
l ` ~
`` 9 °jo ' rb ~ 29 ~
y 10 ~Jr ~ rr ~ 7II! ~OOAc ipO AC
+ ` O q
r 1 1 / ~,yo. ' RounoA• Cowrry E
+°~. S ' ` •BoorO o/ SuP•rrr•o+s 4
8 •o " ~ ~°f° ro ~ 2.52 Ac 2
b 12 ~
o • ~ 9.62 Ae
o ~ °0 13 ~ r• 'hol 8 13 ~'O° h
~ , la ~, m 5 ~ s la ~,o
• ob ~ ,+O ~ ~•~ r ~,-, rr
16 8 •6 f O 3 16 4 +•a P~~ r "' o r+
\ti 10
`~` PO ~` ~ ,?~ 17 i X23 •ti ~~`\1 20 •r ,~ 22 'J?O,••
17
+
O ~+.. P .~
~ ` 9 ~r• Nofthmont „a:' +/ s•j6 s
~M ~
a
f \
~ ~~`~ 6+O+s+ yo rw fo /r ~~ / ~I \ Nor IA\ (loonoR• \ \\
o' •: e.rr s. •r 'a ~ \ Boonrl\CnurcA \ tS0
S
~~ a \
4 •' \ •G=\ Np\~~n ~ ~
•• ~n+~ 31 30 ,t~ 5 28 0 \ D ~ ~ \
I ~'• l 8 r' 33 css s X00 'q ~ 'S \ \ \
34 i ps• ~ ~ • 6 Z~ ~ ~ \ ~ 49 r
z
35 fO°g D e yD (rceeK = 6A~29.1; '~s~r t~ 24 \ \\ ~~.~9AC.
~~ a / ~ ~ ~ \ .snip
64 `SI! A' ° /Pe`eFS. \~Z\ \p ,~S ~c r2S~' 261 c \\ \\48 Fip( vXop.~C p '
BARRENS RD SEWER
COMMUNITY SBRVICBS
AND DBVBLOPMBNT
ACTION # A-61290-3
ITEM NUMBER ~ ~`
AT A REGULAR MEETINGT THEHROANO D COUNTYEADMINISTRATIONCENTER
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD A
MEETING DATE: June 12, 1990
AGENDA ITEM: Funding for Well Drilling
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~ ~~ ~~
BACKGROUND'
As part of the recon~me ttofnHighwaysehasuacquiredBArlington
Ave.), the Virginia Depar
Hills #2 well by eminent domain at a cost of $57,203. Their
acquisition of Arlington Hills #2 well property encroaches within
the required 50 foot radiu nbgills #4~ 1 d 1 An additionaleclaim
permit to operate Arlingto
will be made to the Virgin wh D h Was drilled in 1988 at a cost of
of Arlington Hills #4 well
$50,657.
The combined production of both wells is 140,000 gallons per
day which would supply 350 equivalent residential units.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
It is necessary to drill additional wells at this time in
order to replace the production lost by the Arlington Hills #2We11
#4 wells. It is pla Road and another well located on therrecently
#1 off Crystal Creek
acquired school property across Route 221 from Arlington Hills 2
and #4. The Starkey well wil io e er be used ent for the existing
Starkey well #1, which can no g
STAFF RECOMMENDATION : „(L~
received from the Virginia
Staff recommends that the money
Department of Highways for t drilling accou t to be nused toldrill
placed in the existing well
and develop additional wells.
E-~ ~
. APPROVED:
SUBMITTED BY:
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
P.E. Elmer C. Hodge
Clifford ~5. County Administrator
Utility Director
ACTION VOTE
No Yes Abs ent
Approved (x) Motion by: Richard W. RobersEddy x
Denied ( ) to approve funding Johnson x
Received ( ) McGraw x
Referred Nickens x
to Robers x
cc: File
Cliff Craig, Director, Utilities
Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance
Reta Busher, Director, Management & Budget
._.
r MOM
,~11L1 H
}[p rg.c
\ C7 X ` \\_
~ 0 725
~r.
'^
rt~~
"~
NORTH
~ ,~ ~I
r
," 21 s r
\ ~\`
1 +• ~ i • l ' i .ro \ 907 '•.. ~ E '
b ~°' \ 19 3
4 r,SY~n, BoN/r~.nu ~ / uun w.pn S: nen
~ ~~. \ ~ Its ~ I
\ - / I
\\• ~ • ~ crnwr xrm some r` ` ~r' I ~ i
// rote ow. \
/ ~ zveormr ~~ ~ o \\ ~ t Q 7
\ ~
rltJ 90zJCrh1 ~•• \ n°z er Icr ~
A°ee ~ / ~ ~ ~ e ' <
Iln ry ~ ~ '
21 ~ ~ ~e.r srr,•a
~\ _ i2 4• 19 ~ 6 Y,J egsr
~" zssr ~ y
\~ _ _ / ~ \
~ n t 72
' - ARCING N ~ ~ ~ b
,, ~~ PROPOSE WELL _ _ 2
-~_
2 \ a • . 20.. / ry ~ / I ' • Bros j I ssns
4
B ~ ~ ! ~~ ., r z r ~ ~~
e ?
` r • ~~ e}r
y~ ~ ~/ r+,r ~4~. 3 ro d•Az1 s}r 1 ~,~ • 1 9
d//~ 7 ° 1
1 ya' r 22 a ~ .b s o . ~I ~ ~°O.`°' ~ ~ ~r 27 = P i
4 !-~
/ ~ 2s tr 19 ~'i ~ ! ~ ~ r
f' a +
z~ + 3
4 n
11 4; M y ° ~ I Y Ci°e °jr ZO
27 r ~ O 4•. 1 '-e° e
S e J 19
eC°S ~. 00
Ij t .y. ~ u ~I' ~ r 11
. ~ . °7 •+b 11 17 ~
l`JJI ~ 12r o / 4, • ~ J ~ zoo Jr ?9
i ~ d
n
~' ~, to e, /+ ~ : °: ?~ r
,F M / °I ~ L8~ ~ ' J ~ 1f
~, ~ ~~ ~ 9 1 y • ~4 2g • 6
y 19 t • S ~ r r.. 24 ~ 16
17 • 20 s t biz r ,~
p 17
5 's 21 ~° ~'' ~ +',1• ~'
¢q ~~ ~°~ % b,,a F ''°
ARLINGTON HILLS WELLS
COMMUNITY SERVICBS
AND DgVBLOPMBNT
F'
~ -` .~.-~
NORTH
W ^ xo.ooo /~
~ -
~ ' , (~--~
i SD Ac `p~, ~'
~~ sss9 - w~O°o \ `O~• ~. 991
\ ~e R
ss~ ~ ~ ~? ~
~ ~• ~ ~f T
rA ~ 6.73 Ac
as a
4 ~ ) :6
660 Ac \ \\~/ / X '1li97 ?
2 RCBS
9.83 Ac `` / a
3 J
a)on~ $TARKEY WELL~I e
Z.n,ic
369J
S
3693
28.37 pc ID)
24464c fC)
9
6'~ ~ App
• s
O
• ~
\\\\
I I \\
8/~e `~ .
~-,-_ ~.~ I ~ -~
\--.
COMMUNITY SERVICES sTARREY WELL ~ 1 SITE
AND DEVBLOPMENT
ACTION #
A-61290-4
ITEM NUMBER '~
AT A REGULARAMEELDNATOTHEHROANOKE OOUNTYEADMINISTRATION CENTER
COUNTY, VIRGIN
MEETING DATE: June 12, 1990
AGENDA ITEM: Addition of Projects to the Drainage Maintenance
Priority List
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~ ~~ ~~~
.» e~,o1 c~~ .
BACKGROUND
Projects P-29 through P-55 were presented to and apphevBoabd
the Board of Supervisors in November, 1989. Also,
approved an additional appropriation of $180,000 to fund
construction of ethcuerentJeprojectsngisheshowneninf1EXHIBITar"A"A
status of thes
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECTS. ~3
ro ects P-56 through P-y2' and
Staff is now submitting p j
revised cost estimates for P-54 and P-55 for approval and
inclusion to the Drainage Maintenance Priority List for as shown
91. The estimated cost of these projects is ,~~3b,00~~
on EXHIBIT "B", PROPOSED PROJECTS.
The FY 1990-91 Drainage Maintenance Budget has approximately
$150,000 available for maintenanofeFYand990o91tfundsonremaincfor
Therefore an estimated ~r~D'
additional projects identified during the year.
~ ~~, OOv
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
EXHIBIT "A" PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECTS
EXHIBIT "B" PROPOSED PROJECTS
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS
No additional funding is being requested.
C'
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of these additional drainage
projects for inclusion to the Drainage Maintenance Priority List.
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
Phillip Henry, P.E. Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
Director of Engineering ________
---------------
--------------------- --
ACTION VOTE
Approved (x) Motion by: Richard W. Robers No Yes Ab~nt
to approve additional Eddy x
Denied ( ) x
Received ( ) projects with P-73, Cave Johnson x
Referred ( ) Spring Lane, Estimated McGraw x
To Cost $15,000, added Nickens x
Robers
cc: File
Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering
2
~-~
ERHIBIT "A"
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECTS
STATUS OF PROJECTS
PROJECT DATE APPROVED COMPLETE
P-1 thru P-28 February, 1988 75$
P-29 thru P-55 November, 1989 56~
TOTAL PROJECTS COMPLETED .............36 (66a)
3
~-3
DRAINAGE MAINTENANCE
(PRIORITIZED)
p_1, g, W. Kessler Complete
Cost: $2,500
6911 Goff Road
Loman Road
P-2. Penn Forest Christian Church Costlete $3,500
Penn Forest
P-3. Russell E. Taylor Complete
Cost: $40,000
2824 Emissary Drive
Montclair
P-4. Bob Hansel
4514 Hammond Lane
Eton Hills
P-5. Dot Eller
3611 McDaniel Drive
Andrew Lewis Place
P-6. George Warner
3934 Sandpiper Drive
Penn Forest
p-7, Harry Goin
8167 Hunter's Trail
Belleview Estates
P-8. N. J. Holbrook
314 Woodmere Drive
Lindenwood
P-9. J. D. Thompson
618 Landfair Drive
Lindenwood
P-10.Richard Smoot
1325 Vivian Avenue
Dwight Hills
P-11.Stan Barnhill
3333 Kingswood Drive
Algoma Park
P-12.George Coughenhour
3319 Overhill Trail
Penn Forest
P-13.Lawrence E. Horton
3510 Penn Forest Boulevard
Penn Forest
4
Complete
Cost: $25,000
Negotiating for easement
Cost: $50,000
Complete
Cost: $60,000
Complete
Cost: $20,000
Complete $3,000
Cost:
Complete $3,000
Cost:
Complete $2 000
Cost:
Complete $5,000
Cost:
Under Contract $37,000
Cost:
Under Contract $1,500
Cost:
-.~
P-14.Gene Tuttle
5551 Ambassador Drive
Montclair
P-15.Richard Looney
7340 Barrens Road
Barrens Road
p-16.Norman Caldwell
2233 Ruritan Road
La Bellevue
P-17.David Crosswhite
5216 Burnt Quarter Drive
Falling Creek Estates
P-18.Bridle Lane
Sugar Loaf Estates
P-19.Watkins
Sugar Loaf Mountain Road
P-20.Jack Browning
2844 Embassy Drive
p_21,W, p, Meador
5516 Lamplighter Drive
P-22.Hugh Wells
3663 Chaparral Drive
P-23.Cheryl Beach
5444 Lakedale Road
P-24.Pauline Roberson
4314 Cresthill Drive
P-25.George Billups
3558 Verona Trail
P-26.Mrs. Charles H. Clum, Jr.
5041 Craun Lane
P-27.Mrs. Vola Cockram
3549 Colony Lane
P-28.Dennis Duff
5137 Waxmyrtle
P-29.Nelms Lane
St. Route #840
North County
Complete
Cost: $5,000
Complete
Cost: $1,500
Ready for construction
Cost: $5,000
Complete
Cost: $2,000
Complete
Cost: $2,000
Complete
Cost: $1,500
Complete
Cost: $5,000
Complete
Cost: $1,000
Ready for Bid
Cost $25,000
Complete $1,000
Cost:
Estimated .Cost: $2,500
Complete
Cost: $1,500
Complete
Cost: $3,500
Complete
Cost: $2,000
Ready for construction
Cost: $3,500
Engineering and Surveying
underway
Estimated Cost: $61,000
5
,~ ' J
P-30.John D. Kelly
942 Starmount Avenue
Starmount
P-31.Lynn Kirk
4704 Whipplewood Drive
Branderwood
P-32.Bobby Joe Hogan
2814 Embassy Circle
Montclair Estates
P-33.Raymond Hodges
509 Palisades Drive
Lindenwood
P-34.Palm Valley/Sun Valley
P-35.Dick Simpson
5332 Cave Spring Lane
Nottingham Hills
P-36.J. D. Porter
2745 Tanglewood Drive
Meadowlark
P-37.John Glovier
4620 Vest Drive
Eton Hills
p-38.Ron Callahan
5138 Springlawn Avenue
Springlawn
P-39.Kim Hagood
2938 Merino Drive
Castle Rock Farms
P-40.Thomas L. Wright
2737 Tully Drive
Glen Cove
p-41.William T. Andrews
5702 Pine Acres Lane
Pine Acres
P-42.Samuel Irvin
4124 Eagle Circle
Penn Forest
Complete $12,500
Cost:
Complete $500
Cost:
Estimated Cost: $20,000
Complete $10,000
Cost:
Estimated Cost: $25,000
Complete $4,000
Cost:
Estimated Cost: $1,500
Estimated Cost: $1,500
Complete $6,000
Cost:
Complete $2,500
Cost:
Complete $5,000
Cost:
Complete $1,000
Cost:
Complete $1,500
Cost:
6
P-43.David Smith
1446 Freeborn Circle
Hamden Hills
P-44.Donald Obenchain
3743 Colonial Avenue
Colonial Heights
P-45.Glen Unroe
4101 Arlington Hills Drive
Arlington Hills
P-46.Howard Boblett
5443 Chatsworth Drive
Mount Vernon Forest
P-47.Lawrence Morgan
4956 Wing Commander Drive
Nichols Estates
P-48.Walter E. Stokley
7887 Enon Drive
North Burlington
P-49.Ralph Horne
1112 East Drive
Dillard Court
P-50.John W. Vaughn
4443 Wyndale Avenue
Wyndale
P-51.Gary Smith
1160 Vivian Avenue
Dwight Hills
P-52.Steven Bratcher
5402 Green Meadow Road
Farmington Lake
P-53.John Eades
4306 Fontaine Drive
Cresthill
P-54.Richard Ferguson
5053 Balsam Drive
Belle Meade
P-55.Robert M. Bostian
5029 Sugar Loaf Mtn. Road
Hidden Valley Court
Complete
Cost: $1,000
Estimated Cost: $500
Complete
Cost: $500
Complete
Cost: $1,500
Complete
Cost: $2,000
Estimated Cost: $3,000
Estimated Cost: $1,500
Complete $1,500
Cost:
Under Construction
Estimated Cost: $5,000
Complete $500
Cost:
Estimated Cost: .$6,000
Estimated Cost: $20,000
Engineering and Surveying
Underway
Estimated Cost: $50,000
7
~-3
ERHIBIT "B"
PROPOSED PROJECTS
P-54 Richard Ferguson
Revision 5053 Balsam Drive
Belle Meade
(P-54)
Description: Install storm sewer and drop inlet
Estimated Additional Cost: $10,000
Magisterial District: Cave Spring
P-55 Robert M. Bostian (P-55)
Revision 5029 Sugar Loaf Mountain Road
Hidden Valley Court
Description: Storm sewer rehabilitation
Estimated Additional Cost: $10,000
Magisterial District: Windsor Hills
P-56 Shelton Shepherd
5417 Gieser Road
Grander Park
(RFA 90E517)
Description: Install storm sewer and drop inlet
Estimated Cost: $10,000
Magisterial District: Windsor Hills
P-57 Robert Boyd (RFA 90E539)
2870 Carvins Cove Road
Description: Install storm sewer and construct ditch
Estimated Cost: $5,000
Magisterial District: Catawba
P-58 Bill Murphey (RFA 90E540)
4223 Twin Mountains Circle
Falling Creek
Description: Construct ditch within drainage easement
Estimated cost: $4,000
Magisterial District: Vinton
9
L~'~
P-59 Charles Wilkerson
6712 Greenway Driv-e
North Hills
(RFA 89E505)
Description: Joint VDOT project - acquire easement,
install pipe and ditch
Estimated cost: $5,000
Magisterial District: Hollins
P-60 Julia Kelly (RFA 89E440)
2634 Green Ridge Circle
Montclair Estates
Description: Replace drop inlet top
Estimated cost: $1,500
Magisterial District: Catawba
P-61 Ron Adams (RFA 89E508)
4937 Hunting Hills Drive
Hunting Hills
Description: Construct channel & stabilize pipe outlet
Estimated cost: $3,500
Magisterial District: Cave Spring
P-62 Harold Ayers (RFA 89E511)
341 Missimer Lane
Crofton
Description: Install energy dissipator & stabilize
channel
Estimated cost: $2,000
Magisterial District: Vinton
P-63 Wallace Slusher (RFA 90E529)
2024 Wildwood Road
Description: Extension of storm sewer
Estimated cost: $7,500
Magisterial District: Catawba
10
E- ~
P-64 Ronald Martin
1442 Freeborn Circle (RFA 89E247)
Hamden Hills
Description: Storm sewer repair
Estimated cost $2,000
Magisterial District: Vinton
P-65 Derrick Hall
3460 South Park Circle (RFA 89E434)
Southwoods
Description: Repair concrete channel
Estimated cost: $1,000
Magisterial District: Windsor Hills
P-66 Paul Rotenberry
6522 Woodbrook Drive (RFA 89E466)
Brookwood
Description: Regrade 100' of ditch
Estimated cost: $1,000
Magisterial District: Windsor Hills
P-67 Geneva Witt
1156 Nover Avenue (RFA 89E497)
Dwight Hills
Description: Channel Improvements
Estimated cost: $5,000
Magisterial District: Catawba
P-68 Howard Ridgeway
5413 South Roselawn Road (RFA 89E514)
Layman Lawn
Description: Install rip-rap in drainage easement
Estimated cost: $500
Magisterial District: Cave Spring
11
P-69 Art D. LaPrade
3041 Merino Drive (RFA 90E579)
Castle Rock
Description: Storm sewer rehabilitation
Estimated cost: $4,000
Magisterial District: Windsor Hills
P-70 Joe Thurston
4614 Hazel Drive (RFA 90E576)
Eton Hill
Description: Repair separated pipe
Estimated cost: $1,000
Magisterial District: Cave Spring
P-71 J. K. Findley (RFA 90E567)
4655 West River Road
Wabun
Description: Extension of pipe from R/W and easement
acquisition (joint VDOT project)
Estimated cost: $3,000
Magisterial District: Catawba
P-72 Sarah Crosier (RFA 90E520)
3375 Kingswood Drive
Algoma Park
Description: Channel Improvements
Estimated Cost: $45,000
Magisterial District: Cave Spring
P-73 Charles Flora, Jr. (RFA 90E559)
5423 Cave Spring Lane
Nottingham Hills
Description: Storm Drain Construction
Estimated Cost: $15,000
Magisterial District: Windsor Hills
12
~~~
~ j . ~~
~- -
~~ ~~ , •-; HST. ~ ~ \
r,, ~ ~ VICINITY JKAP ~
E'
NORTB
COMMUNITl'SBRVICSS ~2~4A{,IILDW00DROAD
AND DBVBLOPMBNT
P-63
ACTION #
A-61290-5
ITEM NUMBER '
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE,COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: June 12, 1990
AGENDA ITEM: Appropriation to VML/VACO for Assessment for
Appalachian Power Negotiations
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: - ~ ~~~
.~ ~ , o 0 7 ~ `'~~
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The VML/VACO Appalachian Power Company
Steering Committee has been established to negotiate a reduction
in electric service charges to local governments for the period
beginning July 1, 1990. To cover the expenses of the utility
consultant, legal fees and other expenses associated with the
negotiations, the Steering Committee proposed a $115,000
assessment. Each local government is asked to contribute a
proportionate share based on the 1989 electricity units for its
locality (exclusive of street lights). The amount that has been
assessed for the County of Roanoke is $9,007.
(~-.
FISCAL IMPACT:~The $9,007 assessment will need to be appropriated
from the unappropriated balance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends making the necessary
appropriation and forwarding the $9,007 to the VML/VACO Steering
Committee.
~Ccy-r-~e- /~. ~'''
Diane D. Hyatt Elmer C. Hodge
Director of Finance County Administrator
ACTION
Approved (x )
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred ( )
To
Motion by: StPVPn A Mn[,raw
to a~ rnvP aGGPG~mPnt
VOTE
No Yes Abs ent
Eddy x
Johnson x
McGraw x
Nickens x
Robers x
cc: File
Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance
Reta Busher, Director, Management & Budget
ACTION #
ITEM NUMBER ~ "'r J
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: June 12, 1990
AGENDA ITEM: Acquisition of Sanitary Sewer easement from Jesse
N. Jones and Mary H. Jones by Eminent Domain
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS•
BACKGROUND•
At the December 19, 1989 Board of Supervisors meeting, the
Board authorized staff to proceed with eminent domain to acquire
a sanitary sewer easement from Jesse N. Jones and Mary H. Jones.
The easement is required in order to extend an existing sanitary
sewer sub-main to the Valleypointe Phase II development.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The Valleypointe Phase II sewer line required easements on
nine properties. Eight of the easements have been obtained at a
cost equal to 40$ of the assessed valuation of the easement area
acquired. Our offer to purchase the required easement at 40$ of
its full assessed value has not been accepted.
The easement across the Jones' property is 1,032 feet and
includes a permanent easement of 18,780 square feet and a temporary
construction easement of 28,170 square feet. Although the entire
easement is within the limits of the 100 year flood hazard zone,
our offer was based on the average square foot value established
by the assessment records.
~/-l
SUNIlKARY OF INFORMATION (continued:
In addition to the $2,579 offer for the easement and the
standard agreement concerning restoration, staff agreed to
construct the manhole tops level to grade so as not to interfere
with use of the land; staff agreed to reconstruct and/or grade the
existing manhole tops level with the existing surface and to
replace any field drain lines that may be disturbed by the sewer
construction. The above-mentioned construction items are included
on the construction sheets and the importance of these items were
discussed with the contractor at the pre-construction conference.
The above items were discussed directly with Mr. Jones on the
site by the Utility Director, the Design Engineer and the Right-
of-Way Acquisition Agent.
Staff hired Commonwealth Appraisal Company to make an
independent appraisal for the taking of this property. The
appraisal report made by Mr. Earl G. Robertson, MAI, SRPA,
established a fair market value for the taking to be $4,748 based
on preliminary plans which indicated the manhole tops to be one
foot above finished grade. Upon review of the final plans, which
provide for the top of the manholes to be flush with finished
grade, Mr. Robertson issued a report dated April 20, 1990
establishing the value of the permanent easement, temporary
construction easement and damage to residue to be $2,579.00.
A written offer was made to Jesse N. Jones and Mary H. Jones
in the amount of $2,579 as part of the eminent domain process.
This offer and the easement agreement is consistent with the method
of establishing value used for all sanitary sewer easements
acquired during the past four years by Roanoke County.
Immediate right-of-entry is required in order to complete
construction of the remaining portion of the Valleypointe Phase II
Sewer Project .
FISCAL IMPACT:
$2,579 - Virginia Resources Bond Fund
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that after the Public Hearing, the Board of
Supervisors adopt the attached resolution authorizing immediate
right-of-entry to the property in order to construct the remaining
portion of the Valleypointe Phase II sewer project, and thereafter
proceed with condemnation.
~-l
SUBMITTED BY:
Clifford r ig, P.E.
Utility Director
APPROVED:
~ r~~ ~~i
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
Approved
Denied
Received
Referred
to
Motion by:
ACTION
VOTE
No Yes Abs
Eddy
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
Robers
-~
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER,
TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 1990
RESOLUTION PURSUANT TO § 15.1-238(e) OF THE 1950 CODE OF
VIRGINIA, AS AMENDED, SETTING FORTH THE INTENT OF ROANOKE
COUNTY TO ENTER UPON CERTAIN PROPERTIES AND TO TAKE
CERTAIN RIGHTS-OF-WAY IN CONNECTION WITH THE VALLEYPOINTE
PHASE II PROJECT
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, as follows:
1. That the Valleypointe Phase II Sanitary Sewer Project is
one aspect of the overall economic development project for Valley-
pointe Phase II, which involves the development of a mixed use
business park in the vicinity of the southeast intersection of
Interstate Routes 81 and 581 in Roanoke County, Virginia.
2. That in order to complete the sanitary sewer phase of the
Valleypointe II Project, a certain easement is needed and more
particularly described as follows:
A perpetual RIGHT and EASEMENT, twenty feet (20') in
width, to construct, install, improve, operate, inspect,
use, maintain, and repair or replace a sanitary sewer
system and related improvements, together with the right
of ingress and egress thereto, upon, over, under, and
across the tract or parcel of land belonging to Jesse N.
Jones and Mary H. Jones, husband and wife, acquired by
deed dated November 22, 1944, and recorded in the Clerk's
Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia,
in Deed Book 317 , page 4 65 , and designated on the Roanoke
County Land Records as Tax Map No. 26.16-2-14. The
location of said easement is shown and designated as "20'
S.S. LINE EASEMENT" upon the plat, dated November 21,
1989, made by the Roanoke County Engineering Department,
and filed in the office of the Clerk to the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia.
TOGETHER WITH a temporary construction easement of an
additional seven and one-half feet (7 1/2') on either
side of the permanent easement hereinabove described,
totaling fifteen feet (15'), for use as a temporary work
space and to allow for necessary grading during any phase
!~' "
2
of construction, reconstruction, repair, or replacement
of the sanitary sewer facilities or related improve-
ments.
The fair market value of the aforesaid interest to be
acquired is $2,579, such compensation and damages, if
any, having been offered the property owners.
2. It is immediately necessary for the County to enter upon
and take such property and commence said sanitary sewer construc-
tion in order to complete Phase II of the Valleypointe Project and
to thereafter institute and conduct appropriate condemnation
proceedings as to said sanitary sewer easement; and
3. That pursuant to the provisions of § 15.1-238(e) of the
Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, and pursuant to notice and
public hearing as made and provided therein, the Board does hereby
invoke all and singular the rights and privileges and provisions
of said § 15.1-238 (e) as to the vesting of powers in the County
pursuant to § 33.1-119 through § 33.1-129 of the Code of Virginia
(1950), as amended, all as made and provided by law.
METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION SHOWN ON THIS PLAT REPRESENT A COMPOSITE OF DEEDS,
PLATS, AND CALCULATED INFORMATION AND DO NOT REFLECT AN ACCURATE BOUNDARY SURVEY. ~;
~F ~
S 8° 33~~
4
~.
/o~
ati'a JESSE N. JONES ~
/ . oo .
/ N i~o °°
/ `~~
~, `~
c~~"~ _
h~ / West forks ~~--~ !~ /90 ~
~o~ / r•= .~ ~-ate 276 MH.~'3 a
0 / 250 MH.,~2A ap,
~ /~/M"',r2 20~ S.S. LINE
~%~~ EASEMENT
E It~sihq 1~
MH.II /
' / ig!~%
ti~
g=~ 00
4;~ l~/ \~00.
~~p ~
. ooh
,~
~m .6
~ m ~6
N I.l°oOM S2.o'' W ~ ~
N t•IOW 71.0' p fM
N 7°S6 E l2.0~ ~
M 22°23E 71.30~1~
Nss°31E zzoo~ VALLEYPOINTE PHASE IL
TAX MAP N0. 26.16 - 2 - 14 ~~
SCALE ; I = 2 50
PLAN S:-iG,i_`i~ SA_.t="A:t: Sr,~:Z EAS3.`~,ii
3~=:f~ CJ'i/3Y:,7 '"J ROA:;Ji:G ~OJ_il~i
3l
JESSE *I. JOB LS
Prepared 8y; Roonok• County Engineer~nq Department Oate: II-21-8
_ ~_~
= APPEARANCE REQUEST
= AGENDA ITEM NO. --~ - i -~ ~~~ ~
- ~~
suB~ECT ~s ~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~s.- ~~~ ~ ~~ r
-
_
I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supex~isors to
recognize me during the public hearin on the above matter
so that I may comment.WHEN CALLS TO THE PODIUM,
- I WILL GIVE MY NAME A
- ND ADDRESS FOR THE
= RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES
= LISTED BELOW.
__
• Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment
whether speaking as an individual or representative. The chairman will
'c decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue,
and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to
do otherwise.
_
• Speakers will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. Ques-
bons of cl ' 'cation may be entertained by the Chairman.
_
• All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized
speaker and audience members is not allowed.
• Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times.
c
• Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments
with the clerk.
• INDIVIDUALS PURPORTING TO SPEAK FQR AN ORGANIZED
GROUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION
- FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT
- THEM.
-
_ .PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO DEPUTY CLERK
mlllllllllllliliilllliillllllllillllllllllllllllilllllllllllllilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllilllilllillliilllllllllllllllll
ACTION #
ITEM NUMBER -~ "
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
IN ROANOKE, VA., ON TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 1990
MEETING DATE: June 12, 1990
AGENDA ITEM: ORDINANCE AMENDING AND READOPTING CHAPTER 16 OF THE
ROANOKE COUNTY CODE AS CHAPTER 16A, PRECIOUS METALS
AND GEMS
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
BACKGROUND•
Currently Chapter 16 of the Roanoke County Code, "Precious
Metals and Gems" has Sections 16-1 through 16-20 reserved. In the
process of developing the ordinance to organize the county police
department, these sections appeared to be the logical location to
place the Police Department Ordinance. While some consideration was
given to including the "Precious Metals and Gems" sections in with
the Police Department sections, it was felt this might prove
confusing as well as making the "Precious Metals" sections more
difficult for citizens to find.
SUNIlKARY OF INFORMATION:
The current "Precious Metals and Gems" ordinance is an
important tool for effective law enforcement in Roanoke County.
Enforcement of this Chapter will now come under the Chief of Police
of the Roanoke County Police Department. The necessary amendments
to the current code sections have been made to achieve that
objective. As no major problems appear to have arisen in the
current enforcement of this ordinance, no substantive changes are
being made at this time. The current code sections will stay the
same; only the chapter number will change from 16 to 16A.
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends adoption to these amendments to be
~-1
consistent with the new Police Department organization.
Respectfully sub fitted,
Jo eph B. Obenshain
S for Assistant County Attorney
Action
Approved ( )
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred
to
Motion by
Eddy
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
Robers
Vote
No Yes Abs
,~ -~
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER,
TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 1990
ORDINANCE AMENDING AND READOPTING CHAPTER 16
OF THE ROANO.KE COUNTY CODE AS CHAPTER 16A,
PRECIOUS METALS AND GEMS
WHEREAS, it is the intention of the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, to institute and establish a county
police department by adopting a new Chapter 16, Police to the
Roanoke County Code; and,
WHEREAS, it is the intention of the Board of Supervisors to
continue in effect those provisions of the Roanoke County Code
dealing with the regulation of dealers in precious metal and gems
with the same section numbers as currently but under a new Chapter
designated 16A, and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on June
12, 1990; the second reading on this ordinance was held on June
26, 1990.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
as follows:
1. That Chapter 16, currently Precious Metals and Gems, of the
Roanoke County Code be, and it hereby is, amended and reenacted as
Chapter 16A Precious Metals and Gems by amending and reenacting
Sections 16-21 through 16-32 and Sections 16-41 through 16-48 to
read and provide as follows:
Chapter 16A
PRECIOUS METALS AND GEMS
ARTICLE I. GENERALLY
1
Sec. 16-21. Definitions. ~°` l
The following words, terms, and phrases, when used in this
Chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this Section,
except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:
"Coin" means any piece of gold, silver, or other metal
fashioned into a prescribed shape, weight, and degree of fineness,
stamped by authority of a government with certain marks and
devices, and having a certain fixed value as money.
~~Dealer'~ means any person, firm, partnership or corporation
engaged in the business of purchasing secondhand precious metals
or gems, removing in any manner precious metals or gems from
manufactured articles not then owned by such person, firm,
partnership or corporation, buying, acquiring or selling precious
metals or gems removed from such manufactured articles. "Dealer"
shall mean any employee or agent who makes any such purchase for
or on behalf of his employer or principal. This definition shall
not be construed so as to include persons engaged in the following:
(1) Purchase of precious metal or gems directly from other
dealers, manufacturers, or wholesalers for retail or wholesale
inventories, provided the selling dealer has complied with the
provisions of this Chapter.
(2) Purchases of precious metals or gems from a duly
qualified fiduciary who is disposing of the assets of the
estate being administered by such fiduciary in the
administration of an estate.
(3) Acceptance by a retail merchant of trade-in merchandise
2
Z-/
previously sold by such retail merchant to the person
presenting that merchandise for trade-in.
(4) Repairing, restoring or designing jewelry by a retail
merchant, if such activities are within his normal course of
business.
(5) Purchases of precious metals or gems by industrial
refiners and manufacturers, insofar as such purchases are made
directly from retail merchants, wholesalers, or dealers or by
mail originating outside the Commonwealth of Virginia.
(6) Persons regularly engaged in the business of purchasing
and processing nonprecious scrap metals which incidentally may
contain traces of precious metals recoverable as a by-product.
~~Gems~~ means precious or semiprecious stones customarily used
in jewelry whether loose or in a setting.
~~Precious metals~~ means any item, except coins, composed in
whole or in part of gold, silver, platinum or platinum alloys.
sec. 16-22. Violations of Chapter generally.
Any person convicted of violating any provisions of this
Chapter shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor for the first
offense. Upon conviction of any subsequent offense, he shall be
guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
sec. 16-23. Chapter not applicable to sale or purchase of coins.
The provisions of this Chapter shall not apply to the sale or
purchase of coins.
sec. 16-23.1 Chapter not applicable to financial institutions.
The provisions of this Chapter shall not apply to any bank or
3
2 -/
branch thereof, trust company, or bank holding company,, or any
wholly-owned subsidiary thereof, engaged in the business of buying
and selling gold and silver bullion.
Sec. 16-24. Waiver of Article provisions for certain exhibitions
and shows.
The Chief of Police °~~ may waive, by written notice, any
provision of this Chapter, except Section 16-30, for particular
numismatic, gem or antique exhibitions or craft shows sponsored by
nonprofit organizations, provided the purpose of the exhibitions
or shows is nonprofit in nature, notwithstanding the fact that
there may be casual purchases and trades made at such exhibition
or shows.
ARTICLE II. DEALERS
Sec. 16-25. Inspection of records required by Chapter and of
articles listed in such records.
Every dealer shall admit to his premises, during regular
business hours, the Chief of Police or officers of the Police
Department, the sheriff or his sworn deputies and any law-
enforcement official of the state or federal governments, and shall
permit such law-enforcement officer to examine all records required
by this Chapter, and to examine any article listed in such a record
which is believed by the officer to be missing or stolen.
Sec. 16-26. Bond or letter of credit.
(a) Every dealer, at the time of obtaining a permit under
Article III of this Chapter, shall enter into a recognizance in
favor of the Board of Supervisors, secured by a corporate surety
authorized to do business in the Commonwealth, in the penal sum of
4
.,Z~- /
ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00), conditioned upon due observance
of the term of this Chapter. In lieu of a bond, a dealer may cause
to be issued, by a bank authorized to do business in the
Commonwealth, a letter of credit in favor of the Board of
Supervisors, in the sum of then thousand dollars ($10,000.00).
(b) A single bond upon an employer or principal may be written
or a single letter of credit issued under this section to cover all
employees and all transactions occurring at a single location.
(c) If any person shall be aggrieved by the misconduct of any
dealer who has violated the provision of this Chapter, he may
maintain an action for recovery in any court of proper jurisdiction
against such dealer and his surety, provided that recovery against
the surety shall be only for that amount of the judgment, if any,
which is unsatisfied by the dealer.
Sec. 16-27. Notice of closing and reopening of business;
location of business.
If the business of a dealer is not operated without
interruption, Saturdays, Sundays and recognized holidays excepted,
for a beriod of not less than ten days the dealer shall notify
the Chief of Police a~~z of all closings and reopenings of such
business. The business of a dealer shall be conducted only from the
fixed and permanent location specified in his application for a
permit under this Chapter.
Sec. 16-28. Identification of persons from whom purchases made.
No dealer shall purchase precious metal or gems, without first
ascertaining the identity of the seller, by requiring an
identification card or document issued by a governmental agency,
5
.s-l
with a photograph of the seller thereon, and at least one other
corroborating means of identification, and obtaining a statement
of ownership from the seller.
Sec. 16-29. Record of Purchases.
(a) Every dealer shall keep, at his place of business an
accurate and legible record of each purchase of precious metals or
gems. The record of each such purchased shall be retained by the
dealer for not less than twenty-four (24) months. These records
shall set forth the following:
(1) A complete description of all precious metals or gems
purchased from each seller. The description shall include
all names, initials, serial numbers or other identifying
marks or monograms on each item purchased, the true
weight or carat of any gem and the price paid for each
item.
(2) The date and time of receiving the item(s) purchased.
(3) The name, address, age, sex, race, driver's license
number or social security number and signature of the
seller.
(4) A statement of ownership from the seller.
(b) The information requires by subdivisions 1 through 3 of
subsection (a) above shall appear on each bill of sale for all
precious metals and gems purchased by a dealer and a copy shall be
mailed or delivered, within twenty-four (24) hours of the time of
purchase, to the office of the Chief of Police~~_.
Sec. 16-30. Prohibited purchases.
6
~'
(a) No dealer shall purchase precious metals or gems from any
person who is under the age of eighteen (18) years.
(b) No dealer shall purchase precious metals or gems from any
person who the dealer believes, or has reason to believe, is not
the owner of such items, unless such person has written and duly
authenticated authorization from the owner permitting and directing
such sale.
(c) No dealer shall purchase or sell any precious metals or
gems except at the place of business as identified in the
application required by Section 16-42.
Sec. 16-31. Retention of purchases.
(a) A dealer shall retain all precious metals or gems
purchased by him for a minimum of ten (10) calendar days from the
date on which a copy of the bill of sale is received by the Chief
of Police s~re~-pursuant to Section 16-29. Until the expiration
of this period, the dealer shall not sell, alter or dispose of a
purchased item, in whole or in part, or remove it from the county.
(b) If a dealer performs the service of removing precious
metals or gems, he shall retain the metals or gems removed and the
article from which the removal was made for a period of ten (10)
calendar days after receiving such article and precious metals or
gems.
SeC. 16-32. ReCOrd of sales.
Each dealer shall keep and maintain, for at least twenty-four
(24) months, an accurate and legible record of the name and address
of the person to whom he sells any precious metal or gem in its
7
~--/
original form after the waiting period required by Section 16-31.
This record shall also show the name and address of the person from
whom the dealer purchased such item.
Secs. 16-33 -- 16-40. Reserved.
ARTICLE III. PERMIT
sec. 16-41. Permit required; posting.
No person shall engage in the activities of a dealer in the
county as defined by Section 16-21, unless he has a current permit
so to do issued by the Chief of Police= pursuant to this
Article. No purchase or sale permitted by this Chapter shall be
lawful unless and until such permit is prominently posted at the
dealer's place of business.
Sec. 16-42. Application fee.
Any person desiring a permit required by this Article shall
file with the Chief of Police °~~= an application form, which
shall include the dealer's full name and any aliases and his
address, date of birth, age, social security number, sex, and
fingerprints; the name, address, and telephone number of the
applicants' employer, if any; and the location of the applicant's
place of business. Such application shall be accompanied by an
application fee of two hundred dollars ($200.00), payable to
"Treasurer, Roanoke County."
sec. 16-43. Applicant's weighing devices to be inspected and
approved.
Before a permit required by this Article may be issued, the
applicant must have all weighing devices used in his business
inspected and approved by county or state weights and measures
8
.~-/
officials and present written evidence of such approval to the
Chief of Police ~e~r. As a condition for renewal of any permit,
as permitted under Section 16-46, each dealer shall provide written
evidence of an inspection and approval within thirty (30) days
prior to such renewal date.
Sec. 16-44. Issuance or denial.
Upon the filing of a proper application for a permit under
this Article and compliance with the provisions of this Article and
of Section 16-26, the applicant shall be issued a permit by the
Chief of Police ~hG~T, provided the applicant has not been
convicted of a felony or crime of moral turpitude within seven (7)
years prior to the date of application. The permit shall be denied
if the applicant has been denied a permit or has had a permit
revoked under this Chapter or any ordinance of this county or
another jurisdiction similar in substance to the provisions of this
Chapter. Any false or misleading information provided on the
application form required by Section 16-42 may be grounds for
denial of a permit.
sec. 16-45. Not transferable.
No permit issued under this Article shall be transferable.
sec. 16-46. Term; renewal.
A permit issued under this Article shall be valid for one
(1) year from the date issued, unless sooner revoked, and may be
renewed in the same manner as such permit was initially obtained,
with an annual permit fee of two hundred dollars ($200.00).
Sec. 16-47. Revocation.
9
~- /
Upon the first conviction, by any court, of a dealer for
violation of any provision of this Chapter, the Chief of Police
enter= may revoke his permit to engage in business as a dealer
under this Chapter for a period of one full year from the date the
conviction becomes final. Such revocation by the Chief of Police
shall be mandatory upon a second conviction.
ARTICLE IV. sEVERABILITY
sec. 16-48. severability.
The sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses and phrases of
this Chapter are severable, and if any phrase, clause, sentence,
paragraph or section of this Chapter shall be declared
unconstitutional or invalid by the valid judgment or decree of a
court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining phrases, clauses,
sentences, paragraphs and sections of this Chapter shall remain
valid.
2. That these amendments and reenactments shall be in full
force and effect on and after June 27, 1990.
10
ACTION #
ITEM NUMBER ~ -'~~'
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
IN ROANOKE, VA., ON TUESDAY, June 12, 1990
MEETING DATE: June 12, 1990
AGENDA ITEM: ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A COUNTY POLICE FORCE FOR
THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
// __ /~ , i1 .
(~C7rt~Yru~s~e"' ~ %~"'6'~`~'-'~ i .cam-~-c~.~~-Ca-e~r.,~.t/
C7
BACKGROUND:
On November 7, 1989, a majority of the qualified voters of
Roanoke County approved the establishment of a county police force
in a referendum conducted pursuant to § 15.1-131.6:1 of the Code
of Virginia. At its 1990 legislative session, the General Assembly
of the Commonwealth of Virginia enacted House Bill 413 which
creates § 15.1-131.11 which authorizes Roanoke County to establish
a county police department. This section states that "such police
department shall be organized in accordance with an ordinance to
be adopted by the board of supervisors thereof."
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The proposed ordinance for the establishment of a county
police department is designed to organize the department and
provide for the general powers of the Chief of Police and the
officers in the department. The ordinance authorizes the
department to be headed by a Chief of Police who shall be the
principal law enforcement officer within Roanoke County. The
officers of the county police department shall be selected and
promoted by the Chief of Police. The county police officers shall
have all the powers and authority granted to them by either statute
or the common law powers of law enforcement officers in Virginia.
The ordinance also contains general organizational provisions for
record keeping and providing copies of such records to the public.
Property which comes into the hands of the department whether as
evidence or otherwise will be disposed of in accordance with state
law.
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS:
1.. - 2
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends the adoption of this ordinance in order
for the county police department to become operational as of July
1, 1990.
Respectfully submitted,
i
Jo ph B Obenshain
S 'or A sistant County Attorney
Action
Approved ( )
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred
to
Motion by
Vote
No Yes Abs
Eddy
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
Robers
--~ :...
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER,
TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 1990
ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A COUNTY POLICE FORCE
FOR THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, on November 7, 1989, the qualified voters of Roanoke
County approved by majority vote the establishment of a police
force in the County in a referendum conducted pursuant to § 15.1-
131.6:1 of the Code of Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia
in its 1990 legislative session enacted authorizing legislation for
the creation of such a police department as required by § 15.1-
131.6:1 of the Code of Virginia: and
WHEREAS, it is the intention of the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, to institute and establish a police
department for the County of Roanoke which shall commence
operations on July 1, 1990, at 12:00:01 a.m.; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on June
12, 1990; the second reading on this ordinance was held on June
26, 1990.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
as follows:
1. That Chapter 16, currently Precious Metals and Gems, of the
Roanoke County Code be, and it hereby is, amended and reenacted
under the heading Police by adding Sections 16-1 through 16-18 to
read and provide as follows:
CHAPTER 16
Police
1
„~~' ~.
Article I. In General
Sec. 16-1. Establishment of Police Department.
A police department consisting of a Chief of Police and
officers of such rank and experience as the chief shall determine
is hereby created for the County of Roanoke, Virginia. This
department shall be known as the Roanoke County Police Department.
Sec. 16-2. Duties and authority of Police Department and its
officers.
The Roanoke County Police Department shall exercise all the
powers and duties imposed upon police by the provisions of Chapter
3 of Title 15.1 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, or its
successors as it may from time to time appear. The police officers
constituting this department are invested with and authorized to
exercise all of the power and authority which pertains to the
office of constable at common law within the territorial limits of
the County of Roanoke, including the Town of Vinton, in taking
cognizance of and enforcing the criminal laws of the Commonwealth
of Virginia and the ordinances and regulation of the County of
Roanoke.
Sec. 16-3. Limitations on board actions.
Neither the board nor any of its members shall direct the
appointment, promotion or removal of any officer or employee of the
Police Department nor interfere with the Chief of Police in the
exercise of his judgment in any such matters.
Except for the purpose of inquiry, the members of the board
shall deal with the Chief of Police and any officers of the
department solely through the County Administrator, and no member
2
~~` .~,,
of the board shall give orders to or direct any officer or employee
of the department, including the Chief of Police.
Article II. Chief of Police
Sec. 16-4. Selection of Chief of Police
The Chief of Police shall be selected by the County
Administrator and shall serve at the pleasure of the Administrator
at such salary as the Administrator, subject to the approval of the
Board of Supervisors, shall determine.
Sec. 16-5. Duties of Chief of Police; Bond.
The Chief of Police shall be the principal law enforcement
officer of the County of Roanoke, Virginia. The Chief of Police
shall be responsible for the operations of the Roanoke County
Police Department and the performance of all officers and employees
of this department. The Chief of Police shall be authorized to
establish such policies and procedures and to adopt such rules and
regulations for the department, not inconsistent with any such
policies, procedures, rules or regulations of Roanoke County, as
shall be most conducive to the efficient and professional operation
of this department. The Chief of Police shall be bonded in
accordance with standard county practice.
Sec. 16-6. Coordination with other law enforcement agencies;
Reports.
In carrying out his responsibilities, the Chief of Police
shall consult with and coordinate the operations of this department
with the Sheriff of Roanoke County, the Chief of Police of the Town
of Vinton and the principal law enforcement officer of all
contiguous jurisdictions, in so far as reasonably possible. The
3
~~
Chief of Police shall keep the County Administrator informed of the
operations of his department and of significant matters affecting
the public safety of the County of Roanoke and shall make such
reports to the Administrator and the Board of Supervisors as shall
be periodically required.
Article III. officers and Employees
Sec. 16-7. Selection and appointment of police officers; oaths.
The officers of the Roanoke County Police Department shall be
selected, appointed, promoted and terminated by the Chief of
Police. To assist the Chief in hiring the most capable and
qualified officers, he shall be authorized to establish such
selection procedures, including the administration of tests or
other measurements, as are consistent with professional police
practices. Prior to receiving his badge of office, each officer
shall take an oath as prescribed by state statute or local
ordinance.
Sec. 16-8. Powers and duties of police officers.
Every officer of this department shall have all powers and
authority as stated in Sec. 16 - 2 above. It shall be the duty of
every officer of this department to use his best efforts to
preserve and enforce the criminal laws of the Commonwealth of
Virginia and the ordinances and regulation of the County of Roanoke
and to preserve the peace and good order of this community. Each
officer shall in all cases, except in civil matters, execute within
the territorial limits of Roanoke County, and within one mile
beyond, all warrants or summonses as may be placed in his hand.
4
Sec 16-9. Regulations and procedures.
The Police Department shall adopt such regulations and
procedures in the form of general orders or otherwise as shall be
necessary or conducive to the efficient and professional operation
of the department.
Article IV. Records and Services of the Department
Sec. 16-10. Records of arrests and offenses; Release of records.
The Police Department shall keep records of offenses reported
and arrests and the disposition thereof in such form as the Chief
of Police shall prescribe. The release of any such records shall
be in compliance with the "Virginia Freedom of Information Act, "
§ 2.1-340.1 to 2.1-346.1 and the "Privacy Protection Act of 1976"
§2.1-377 to 2.1-386, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended or their
successors. Provided that written authorization is received from
the individual who is the subject of any investigation or arrest,
the department shall make such information available to third
parties. The department may charge a fee, not to exceed $10.00 to
defray the administrative cost of searching for and providing such
information. The Chief of Police may waive such fee for any law-
enforcement officer or agency or authorized representative of any
armed force of the United States or the Commonwealth or for any
organization which provides services to the Police Department which
are reasonably adequate to offset the revenue to be derived from
such fees.
Sec. 16-1i. Fingerprinting.
The Police Department shall record fingerprint impressions on
5
.~
fingerprint cards for any individual upon the payment of a fee of
$10.00. No fee shall be charged where fingerprinting shall be a
condition of employment of any agency of this local government,
or where performed at
the request of another law-enforcement agency or authorized
representative of the armed forces of the United States or the
Commonwealth. The Chief of Police is authorized to waive this fee
in connection with the fingerprinting of minors conducted by the
department in connection with any public service project or
promotion, in his discretion.
Sec. 16-12. Accident reports.
The Police Department shall keep on file such records of
traffic accidents occurring in the County of Roanoke as the Chief
of Police shall require. Upon the payment of a fee of $10.00 to
defray the cost of providing such reports, the Chief of Police may
make available the originals and permit copying of such reports to
any person directly involved in a particular accident, their legal
or other authorized representative, any authorized representative
of any insurance carrier reasonably anticipating exposure to civil
liability as a consequence of the accident or any party who
suffered personal injury or property damage as a result of such
accident. The provisions of this section shall only apply to the
standard report form authorized by the Department of Motor Vehicles
and shall not be interpreted to include any investigative report
by any police officer or statement made by any witness to any such
accident.
6
Sec. 16-13. Disposition of fees. -~~" ~`--
All fees for services provided by the Police Department in
accordance with this Article shall be deposited with the Treasurer
of Roanoke County for the county's general fund.
Article V. Unclaimed Personal Property.
Bec. 16-14. Definition.
As used herein, "unclaimed personal property" shall mean any
personal property belonging to another which has been acquired by
an officer of this department pursuant to his duties, which is not
needed in any criminal prosecution, which has not been claimed by
its rightful owner and which the state treasurer has indicated will
be declined if remitted under the Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed
Property Act (§ 55-210.1 et seg, Code of Virginia, 1950, as
amended).
Sec. 16-15. When sale authorized.
Any unclaimed personal property which has been in the
possession of the Police Department and is unclaimed for a period
of more than sixty (60) days may be disposed of by the Chief of
Police by public sale, subject to the provisions of this Article.
Sec. 16-16. Prerequisites to sale.
Prior to the sale of any unclaimed property pursuant to this
Article, the Chief of Police, or his duly designated
representative, shall make reasonable attempts to notify the
rightful owner of the property, obtain from the Commonwealth's
Attorney, in writing, a statement advising that the property is not
needed in any criminal prosecution and cause to be published, in
7
a newspaper of general circulation in the county, once a week for
two (2) successive weeks, notice that there will be a public sale
of such unclaimed personal property. Such property shall be
described generally in the notice, together with the date, time and
place of the sale.
Sec. 16-17. Disposition of sale proceeds.
The Chief of Police, or his duly designated representative,
shall pay, from the proceeds of any sale made pursuant to this
Article, the costs of advertisement, removal, storage,
investigation as to ownership and liens and notice of sale. The
balance of such funds shall be deposited with the Treasurer of
Roanoke County for the account of the Chief of Police and paid to
the owner upon satisfactory proof of ownership. If no claim has
been made by the owner for such funds within sixty (60) days of the
sale, the remaining funds shall be deposited in the general fund
of the county. Any such owner shall be entitled to apply to the
county within three (3) years from the date of the sale and, if
timely application is made therefor, the county shall pay the
remaining proceeds of the sale to the owner, without interest or
other charges. No claim shall be made nor any suit, action or
proceeding be instituted for the recovery of such funds after three
(3) years from the date of the sale.
Article VI. SEVERABILITY
Sec. 16-18. Severability.
The sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses and phrases of
8
~-.~_ "
this Chapter are severable, and if any phrase, clause, sentence,
paragraph or section of this Chapter shall be declared
unconstitutional or invalid by the valid judgment or decree of a
court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining phrases, clauses,
sentences, paragraphs and sections of this Chapter shall remain
valid.
Secs. 16-19 to 16-20. Reserved.
2. That these amendments, additions and reenactments shall
be in full force and effect on and after June 27, 1990.
9
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. -~"3
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: June 12, 1990
AGENDA ITEM: ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING AN AUXILIARY POLICE FORCE IN
ROANOKE COUNTY
COUNTY ADMINISTRATO/~R'S COMMENTS:
~~~'. ~---n--~l.~,v~.c.4' ~~.-rs~r~ G ~ ~ :.-K.-c~ .~-cc.e~.c-v..c~
BACKGROUND•
In 1973, the Board established a Sheriff's Department
Auxiliary force which has been an active law enforcement entity
since that time. Current members of this Auxiliary have expressed
repeated interest in continuing as members of an auxiliary police
force under the Roanoke County Police Department.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
An auxiliary police force can provide a significant manpower
resource to any law enforcement agency. Currently, the Roanoke
County Sheriff's Department Auxiliary provides approximately
4,385.5 man/hours each year to supplement the law enforcement
efforts of that department. It is anticipated that a police
department auxiliary force would provide a comparable resource to
the Roanoke County Police Department.
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends creation of a Roanoke County Police Depart-
ment Auxiliary to serve the same function as now served by the
Sheriff's Department Auxiliary.
Respectfully submitted,
Jo ph B. Obens~iain
S for A istant County Attorney
.,.-
~-~-
Action
Approved ( )
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred
to
Motion by
Eddy
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
Robers
Vote
No Yes Abs
-rG-'.~
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER,
TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 1990
ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING AN AUXILIARY POLICE FORCE IN
ROANOKE COUNTY
WHEREAS, the Chief of Police of the Roanoke County Police
Department has expressed a desire to establish a program to provide
for an auxiliary police force in Roanoke County, Virginia, which
said auxiliary police force shall be trained in police procedures
and shall be available as a supplementary force for use for various
police activities and functions in Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, § 15.1-159.2, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended,
authorizes the governing body of a county to establish, equip and
maintain an auxiliary police force; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County is of the
opinion that the establishment of such an auxiliary police force
would be in the best interests of Roanoke County.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, as follows:
1. That Chapter 16, Police, be amended and readopted by adding
Sec. 16-19 as follows:
Sec 16-19. Roanoke County Auxiliary Police Force.
(a) An auxiliary police force is hereby created in Roanoke
County, Virginia. This force shall be designated as the Roanoke
County Auxiliary Police Force. The members of the auxiliary police
force, when called into service, shall have all the powers,
authority and immunities as granted to such forces by Article 4 of
Chapter 3, Title 15.1 of the Code of Virginia [§ 15.1-159.2 et
seq.).
r
Z =3
(b) The Chief of Police shall have the power and authority
to call into service the members of the auxiliary police force at
such times as he deems it necessary so to do.
(c) All individuals who shall serve as auxiliary police
officers shall be selected and appointed by the Chief of Police of
the Roanoke County Police Department.
(d) All auxiliary police officers shall wear the uniform of
the Roanoke County Police Department with a designation thereon
that such officer is a member of the auxiliary police force when
in the performance of their duties.
(e) All auxiliary police officers shall follow and fully
comply with all established policies procedures, rules and
regulations of the Roanoke County Police Department.
2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and
after July 1, 1990.
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. -~ -T
~T A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: June 12, 1990
AGENDA ITEM: AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ASSESSMENT OF FEES
TAXED AS COSTS IN CERTAIN CASES FILED IN COURTS OF
THE COUNTY FOR CONSTRUCTION, RENOVATION OR MAIN-
TENANCE OF COURTHOUSE, JAIL OR COURT-RELATED FACIL-
ITIES, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND AN
EXPIRATION DATE
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ,,,( /,
BACKGROUND•
The 1990 session of the Virginia General Assembly enacted
House Bill 74 which added a new section to the State Code, Section
14.1-133.2. This legislation authorized the assessment of a fee
which will be taxed as costs in each criminal and traffic case in
the district and circuit courts serving Roanoke County
This fee is limited to $2.00 per case. The assessment shall
be imposed by ordinance of the governing body, and the ordinance
may provide for a different fee in district and circuit courts.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
This assessment imposes court costs for the purposes of
construction, renovation or maintenance of courthouse or jail and
court-related facilities and to defray increases in the cost of
heating, cooling, electricity, and ordinary maintenance.
This legislation includes a "sunset" provision: the provi-
sions of this act shall expire on July 1, 1991.
The assessment shall be collected by the clerks of the dis-
trict and circuit courts, and remitted to the Treasurer subject to
disbursements by the Board for the purposes specified in the
statute.
The first reading of this ordinance is scheduled for June 12,
1990; the second reading and public hearing is scheduled for June
26, 1990.
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS:
~' /
Based upon discussions with the Clerks of the General District
and Circuit Courts, it is estimated that this fee will generate
approximately $25,000 in new revenue in Fiscal Year 1990-91. (This
estimate is based upon last year's case load.)
Staff recommends that the Board appropriate the $25,000 in new
revenues for the purposes as stated in the ordinance. Staff will
submit to the Board at a later date a recommendation for the
expenditure of these funds once a series of projects are identified
and prioritized.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board favorably consider the
adoption of this proposed ordinance.
Respectfully submitted,
~~
Paul M. Mahoney
County Attorney
Action
Approved ( )
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred
to
Motion by
Eddy
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
Robers
Vote
No Yes Abs
~- '/
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD .OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER,
TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 1990
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ASSESSMENT OF
FEES TAXED AS COSTS IN CERTAIN CASES FILED IN
COURTS OF THE COUNTY FOR CONSTRUCTION,
RENOVATION OR MAINTENANCE OF COURTHOUSE, JAIL
OR COURT-RELATED FACILITIES, AND PROVIDING FOR
AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND AN EXPIRATION DATE
WHEREAS, the 1990 session of the Virginia General Assembly
enacted House Bill 74 (Chapter 543) which amended the Code of
Virginia by adding a section numbered 14.1-133.2; and
WHEREAS, this enactment authorized the assessment of fees to
be taxed as costs in each criminal or traffic case in the district
and circuit courts of the County for the construction, renovation
or maintenance of the courthouse, jail or court-related facilities,
and further provided the expiration of this authority on July 1,
1991; and
WHEREAS, the first reading on this ordinance was held on June
12, 1990; and the second reading and public hearing was held on
June 26, 1990.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That pursuant to the authority found in Section 14.1-
133.2 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, (1990 Acts of
Assembly, Chapter 543), there is hereby assessed a fee to be taxed
as the costs in each criminal and traffic case in the district and
circuit courts serving Roanoke County the sum of TWO DOLLARS
($2.00).
The fees assessed by this ordinance shall be expended for the
purposes as provided in said statute, specifically, for the
~W`'`/
construction, renovation and maintenance of the courthouse or jail
and court-related facilities and to defray increases in the cost
of heating, cooling, electricity, and ordinary maintenance.
This assessment shall be in addition to other fees and costs
prescribed by law.
2. That this assessment shall be collected by the clerk of
the court in which the action is filed, and remitted to the
Treasurer of Roanoke County and held by him subject to
disbursements appropriated by the Board of Supervisors for the
purposes specified herein.
3. That the effective date of this ordinance shall be July
1, 1990. The provisions of this ordinance shall expire July 1,
1991.
4. That a certified copy of this ordinance shall be
delivered to the Chief Judges of the district and circuit courts
serving Roanoke County, the Clerks of said courts, and the
Treasurer of Roanoke County.
ACTION #
ITEM NUMBER -r',~J~
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
IN ROANOKE, VA., ON TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 1990
MEETING DATE: JUNE 12, 1990
AGENDA ITEM: ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 12, MOTOR VESICLES AND
TRAFFIC, ARTICLE III. PARKING, TO PROHIBIT PARKING
IN FIRE LANES
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~J /
,7 ,
BACKGROUND•
The adoption of the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code
as Article II of Chapter 9 of the Roanoke County Code in May of
1988, resulted in the repeal of the then existing Roanoke County
Fire Lane ordinance. Subsequently difficulty has been experienced
in enforcing citations for parking in fire lanes due to several
factors. Judges have expressed some question about the county's
authority to regulate fire lanes on private property including
shopping centers. Further, the penalty provisions under the
Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code makes any violation a Class
1 Misdemeanor under § 27-100 of the Code of Virginia.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The 1990 session of the General Assembly added Roanoke County
to those counties enumerated in § 46.2-1220 as having the same
powers as any city or town to regulate parking within its
jurisdiction by ordinance. The purpose of the proposed "Fire Lane"
ordinance is to make explicit that Roanoke County makes illegal the
parking of any motor vehicle in a fire lane which has been
designated by the Fire Marshall in accordance with the standards
for fire lanes as previously adopted by this Board. See Ordinance
52488-13. The penalty for parking in a fire lane shall remain at
Twenty-five Dollars ($25.00) as established by Ordinance 85-52.
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: "L'~"~
Staff recommends approval of this ordinance in order to remove
a current loop-hole in the county's public safety enforcement
procedures.
ResA~ectful
Jo ph B~ Obenshain
Se or As istant County Attorney
Action Vote
Approved ( ) Motion by No Yes Abs
Denied ( ) Eddy
Received ( ) Johnson
Referred McGraw
to Nickens
Robers
-~-.~
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
IN ROANOKE, VA., ON TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 1990
ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 12, MOTOR VEHICLES
AND TRAFFIC, ARTICLE III. PARKING, TO PROHIBIT
PARKING IN FIRE LANES
WHEREAS, by Ordinance 52488-13, Roanoke County repealed
Article II, Fire Lanes of Chapter 9, FIRE PREVENTION AND PROTECTION
in adopting the ~~Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code;~~ and
WHEREAS, all violations of the Fire Prevention Code of the
County of Roanoke, Article II, Chapter 9, Roanoke County Code, are
charged as Class 1 Misdemeanors carrying the punishment prescribed
by § 18.2-11, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended; and
WHEREAS, by the amendment of § 46.2-1220 of the Code of
Virginia, the County of Roanoke has been granted the same powers
as cities and towns to regulate parking within its boundaries by
ordinance.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, as follows:
1. That Article III, PARKING, Division 1. GENERALLY, of
Chapter 12, MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC, be amended and readopted
by adding Section 12-60 as follows:
Sec. 12-60. Parking in fire lanes unlawful.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to park in or
otherwise obstruct a fire lane designated and marked by the fire
marshall in accordance with Sec. F-313.1, et seg,, of the Fire
Prevention Code of the County of Roanoke.
(b) The fire marshall or any law-enforcement officer may
1
enforce this section in accordance with the provisions of this
Chapter and may have any motor vehicle parked in violation of this
section towed to a garage or parking lot for storage, at the
expense of the owner of such motor vehicle.
2. That this amendment and readoption shall be in full force
and effect on and after July 1, 1990.
2
fi
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. ~"
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF-THE BOARb OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: June 12, 1990
AGENDA ITEM: Amendment and readoption of Section 12-8 of the
Roanoke County Code; adopting provisions of Title
46.2 and 18.2 of the Code of Virginia
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
BACKGROUND • a ~ ~-' °`-'~'~'~
SUNIlKARY OF INFORMATION:
The 1990 session of the General Assembly of Virginia adopted
certain amendments to the Motor Vehicle laws of Virginia (Title
46.2).
Chapter 12, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, of the Roanoke County
Code, contains within Article I, a Section 12-8 entitled Adoption
of state law. The purpose of Section 12-8 is to incorporate by
reference those sections of Virginia law found in Title 46.2, Motor
Vehicles, and Article 2 of Chapter 7 of Title 18.2, Crimes, of the
Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, which are applicable to the
regulation of traffic within Roanoke County. Amendments as a
result of the 1990 session of the Virginia General Assembly to
Title 46.2 and Article 2 of Chapter 7 of Title 18.2 of the Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended, become effective as of July 1, 1990.
The purpose of this ordinance is to make clear that the Board of
Supervisors has taken affirmative action after the General Assembly
amendments to bring these changes in the law into proper effect for
Roanoke County.
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS:
Failure to adopt this amendment risks having any traffic
charge issued as a County violation which involves incorporation
by reference of any Virginia code section amended by the General
Assembly being dismissed as not properly subject to the County
Code.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board favorably consider this
proposed amendment and reenactment.
~„.,,~
Respectfully submitted,
~-P
Paul M. Mahoney.
County Attorney
Action Vote
Approved ( ) Motion by No Yes Abs
Denied ( ) Eddy
Received ( ) Johnson
Referred McGraw
to Nickens
Robers
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER,
ON TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 1990
ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 12-8 OF ARTICLE I OF CHAPTER
12 OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, as follows:
1. That Section 12-8, Adoption of state law, Article I,
General, of Chapter 12, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, be amended and
readopted to read and provide as follows:
Sec. 12-8. Adoption of state law.
Pursuant to the authority of Section 46.2-1313 of the Code of
Virginia, all of the provisions and requirements of the laws of the
state contained in Title 46.2 and in Article 2 (Section 18.2-226
et seq.) of Chapter 7 of Title 18.2 of the Code of Virginia, except
those provisions and requirements which, by their very nature, can
have no application to or within the County, are hereby adopted and
incorporated in this chapter by reference and made applicable
within the County. References to "highways of the state" contained
in such provisions and requirements hereby adopted shall be deemed
to refer to the streets, highways, and other public ways within the
County. Such provision and requirements, as amended from time to
time, are hereby adopted and made a part of this chapter as fully
as though set forth at length herein, and it shall be unlawful for
any person within the County to violate or fail, neglect or refuse
to comply with any such provision or requirement; provided, that
in no event shall the penalty imposed for the violation of any
provision or requirement hereby adopted exceed the penalty imposed
for a similar offense under the state law hereby adopted.
.~ -
The phrase "all of the provisions and requirements of the laws
of the state" as used hereb shall be construed to include all
amendments to said laws made effective as of the date that this
ordinance is itself effective.
2. The effective date of this ordinance shall be July 1,
1990.
ACTION NO.
ITEM NUMBER -'
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: June 12, 1990
AGENDA ITEM: Second Reading of an Ordinance Imposing or
Increasing User Fees for the Parks and Recreation
Department (Request to defer until July 24, 1990}
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: W~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~h~
.tea ~- a~ ~~ Q.~~-. tfi ate" oe_.C~ e_ c~-~l~
BACKGROU D•
On May 22, 1990, the Board of Supervisors held its first
reading of the ordinance imposing user fees for the Parks &
Recreation Department. Since that time, staff has met with the
Recreation Club presidents concerning its impact to the program,
particularly in the area of Youth Athletics. A committee is being
established with representation from each of the geographic areas
to work through these issues, and we respectfully request that the
second reading of this ordinance be deferred until the July 24
meeting, in order to incorporate the results of the committee's
effort in establishment of a stronger policy document.
There should be no adverse fiscal
revenues as a result of this postponement
County's budget can proceed as originally
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACT:
RECOMMENDATION•
impact to the estimated
and the adoption of the
planned.
Respectfully submitted, Approved by,
~~~ ~~~
ohn M. Chambl ss, Jr. Elmer C. Hodge
Assistant Administrator County Administrator
----------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs
Denied ( ) Eddy
Received ( ) Johnson
Referred ( ) McGraw
To ( ) Nickens
Robers
cc: Steve Carpenter
Reta Busher
Paul Mahoney
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER,
TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 1990
ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE IMPOSING OR
INCREASING OF CERTAIN FEES FOR SERVICES FOR
PARKS AND RECREATION ACTIVITIES
WHEREAS, on September 20, 1989, the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, selected David M. Griffith and
Associates, Ltd. to conduct a detailed cost/revenue study focusing
upon an analysis of user fee services; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of said user fee study was to calculate
the full costs of providing specific services, compare costs with
the revenues received for these services, and recommend fee levels
to recover the full costs of services when such fees are practical;
and
WHEREAS, the Board has found that it is both equitable and
efficient to ensure that those individuals who benefit from certain
governmental services bear the cost thereof while eliminating
unintentional general service cost subsidies; and
WHEREAS, as a result of said study the Board determined that
it was in the public interest to increase certain user fees, as
modified by staff recommendations, budget work sessions, and
citizen comments in order to recover a portion of the direct and
indirect costs of providing certain services as provided herein;
and
WHEREAS, the first reading on this ordinance was held on May
22, 1990, and the second reading on this ordinance was held on June
12, 1990.
1
°"""g, E
w.s .n
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, as follows:
1. That the Director of the Roanoke County Department of
Parks and Recreation is hereby authorized to establish fees for
parks and recreation services and activities, subject to the
approval of the County Administrator, and subject to the following
standards:
a) Definitions:
Indirect costs include the general fund appropriation for
each of the cost centers associated with the recreation area based
on the 1989-90 fiscal year budget, plus the allocation of the
central administrative costs for the Department of Parks and
Recreation, and in the case of athletics, the share of the
ballfield maintenance, which is provided by the Parks Division of
the Department.
Direct costs relate to the specific costs of instructors
and associated supplies, which the County is currently recovering
in the fees charged to participants. The registration fee is
proposed to be established at $5 per participant, per activity and
the membership fee is proposed to be $10 annually for senior
citizens, in lieu of a registration fee. The guidelines, which
were approved by the Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission, are
as follows:
b) For activities included under community education:
leisure arts, outdoor adventure and adult athletics, the fee should
be based upon a $5 registration fee, per participant, plus 25~ of
2
r
.r.
the indirect cost, plus 100 of the direct cost.
c) For youth athletics, the fee should be based upon
a $5 registration fee per participant.
d) For special events, the budget should plan to
recover 40$ of the indirect cost and 100 of the direct cost.
e) For therapeutics, there shall be a recovery of 20$
of the direct cost.
f) For senior citizens, there shall be a $10 membership
fee, plus 100$ of direct cost associated with the program.
2. That the Director shall develop guidelines for the waiver
or reduction of fees based upon demonstrable hardship and inability
to pay.
3. That the effective date of this ordinance and for the
imposition of the fees and charges authorized herein shall be July
1, 1990.
3
~ r
~.J
1
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER,
TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 1990
ORDINANCE 61290-6 IMPOSING OR INCREASING
CERTAIN FEES FOR SERVICES FOR DEVELOPMENT AND
INSPECTIONS, PLANNING AND ZONING, AND
REPEALING PRIOR ACTIONS CONCERNING SAME
WHEREAS, on September 20, 1989, the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, selected David M. Griffith and
Associates, Ltd. to conduct a detailed cost/revenue study focusing
upon an analysis of user fee services; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of said user fee study was to calculate
the full costs of providing specific services, compare costs with
the revenues received for these services, and recommend fee levels
to recover the full costs of services when such fees are practical;
and
WHEREAS, the Board has found that it is both equitable and
efficient to ensure that those individuals who benefit from certain
governmental services bear the cost thereof while eliminating
unintentional general service cost subsidies; and
WHEREAS, as a result of said study the Board determined that
it was in the public interest to increase certain user fees, as
modified by staff recommendations, budget work sessions, and
citizen comments in order to recover 100°s of the direct and
indirect costs of providing certain services; and
WHEREAS, Section 15.1-466.A.(i) of the Code of Virginia
(1950), as amended, authorizes the imposition of reasonable fees
and charges for the review of plats and plans and the inspection
of facilities, such fees and charges shall in no instance exceed
S f
2
an amount commensurate with the services rendered, taking into
consideration the time, skill and administrator's expense involved;
and
WHEREAS, Section 15.1-491(f) of the Code of Virginia (1950),
as amended, authorizes the collection of fees to cover the costs
of making inspections, issuing permits, advertising of notices and
other expenses incident to the administration of a zoning ordinance
or to the filing or processing of any appeal or amendment thereto;
and
WHEREAS, Section 15.1-29.14 of the Code of Virginia (1950),
as amended, directs the advertising, public hearing, and enactment
of certain fees and levies, said requirements having been satisfied
as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the first reading and public hearing on this
ordinance was held on May 22, 1990, and the second reading on this
ordinance was held on June 12, 1990.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, as follows:
1. That there is hereby established certain fees for public
services provided by and through the Roanoke County Department of
Development and Inspections relating to the review of subdivision
plats and plans and similar development services rendered for and
on behalf of citizens, as follows:
Review Site Plans
Review Small Subdivisions
(less than 5 lots or parcels
$685 + $40 per acre
25
Review Large Subdivisions X220 + $45 per lot or parcel
3
Review ErosionfSediment
Control Plan
$100 + $100fper acre or portion thereof
Subdivision waiver or variance
Vacation of subdivision plat
and easements
190
150
2. That Section 8-32, "Filing Fee," of Chapter 8, "Erosion
and Sediment Control," of the Roanoke County Code is hereby amended
and reenacted as follows:
Sec. 8-32. Filing fee.
An applicant submitting a plan pursuant to this article shall
pay a f fi l ing fee o f c i f ty~-A-~-de-i~a~s-}9-1~9~~ €t
One Hundred ($100) dollars plus One Hundred
($100) dollars. for each acre or portion thereof to cover the
administrative expense of review and inspection and approval of
such plan.
3. That there is hereby established certain fees for public
services provided by and through the Roanoke County Department of
Planning and Zoning related to zoning and variance services
rendered for and on behalf of citizens, as follows:
Variance 190
Administrative Appeal
Rezoning
to A-1 , RE, or R-1
to R2, R3, R4, R5
R-MH, R6
to M1, M2, M3
to Bl, B2, B3
275
$415 + $20 per acre or portion thereof
$660 + $25 per acre or portion thereof
X840 + $30 per acre or portion thereof
$945 + $30 per acre or portion thereof
Land Use Amendment
710
Special Use/Landfill 1 875
4
Use Not Provided For Permit $145 + $5 per acre or portion thereof
PUD $145 + $5 per acre or portion thereof
Special Use Permit/Special Exception 20
4. That in addition to the fees established herein, the
applicant shall be responsible for the payment of the full cost of
any legal advertisement or publication costs which may be required
by law.
5. That Resolution No. 2368, which was adopted by this Board
on August 14, 1979, and which established a schedule of fees for
the review of preliminary and final subdivision plats, is hereby
repealed.
6. That Resolution No. 82-213, which was adopted by this
Board on November 22, 1983, and which established a schedule of
fees for certain services for zoning matters, is hereby repealed.
7. That Resolution No. 84-96.q., which was adopted by this
Board on June 12, 1984, and which established a fee for variance
requests, is hereby repealed.
8. That Resolution No. 85-30.E, which was adopted by this
Board on March 12, 1985, and which established a fee for
conditional rezonings and subdivision waivers, is hereby repealed.
9. That Action No. A/2-11-86-34, item F3, which was adopted
by this Board on February 11, 1986, and which established a fee for
administrative appeals to the Board of Zoning Appeals, is hereby
repealed.
10. That the effective date of this ordinance and for the
imposition of the fees and charges contained herein shall be July
1, 1990.
On motion of Supervisor Eddy to adopt ordinance with
5
monitoring system on time and money spent for reviews, and carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Robers
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
John Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator
Arnold Covey, Director, Development & Inspections
Terrance Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning
Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering
Cliff Craig, Director, Utilities
Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney
Skip Burkart, Commonwealth Attorney
Magistrate
Sheriff's Department
Roanoke Law Library, 315 Church Avenue, S.W., Rke, 24016
Main Library
Roanoke County Code Book
Roanoke County J&D Court, Intake Counsellor
ACTION #,
ITEM NUMBER """ ~ ;_,_
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: June 12, 1990
AGENDA ITEM: Second Reading of the Ordinance Imposing or
Increasing User Fees for the Development and
Inspections and Planning and Zoning Departments
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
,~
BACKGROUND: The Department of Management and Budget hired a
consultant to perform a limited User Fee Study. David M. Griffith
& Associates, LTD. (DMG) completed their review of existing and
potential new fees, in February 1990, in the following departments:
• Development and Inspections
• Planning and Zoning
• Solid Waste
• Parks and Recreation
• Jail
• Police
• Fire
The objectives of the Study were to calculate the full costs of
providing specific services, to compare these costs with the
revenues currently received for theses services, and to recommend
fee levels to recover the full costs of services when such fees are
practical.
A service for which a user fee is charged can be viewed as the time
and/or materials costs paid by a governmental agency on behalf of
a private citizen or group. Full costs developed for services
rendered include direct labor costs, divisional and departmental
supervision and administration, and supplies and materials costs.
All appropriate indirect costs allocated from County central
services, such as accounting, budgeting and data processing, to the
departmentlor division performing the service under review are also
included.
The principle of user fees dictates that those who use a service
pay for the cost of producing the service. Although this principle
is firmly established in the private enterprise system, there may
be cases of County activities for which it is not regarded as
appropriate. It may be desirable to set fees for some services
below full cost depending on the circumstances.
~'
`Subsidies are often provided for two basic purposes. The first is
to permit an identified group to participate in services which they
might not otherwise be able to afford. This is a legitimate
function of government, assuring access to importantzservices to
all citizens without regard to their ability to pay.
A second type of subsidy is based on the perception of the ultimate
beneficiary of the service. Many County activities, by their
nature, provide benefits beyond the immediate recipient of the
service. Therefore, it may be regarded as appropriate to spread
the cost of certain services over the large base of p3tential
beneficiaries, as opposed to only the direct recipients.
For purposes of generating new revenue for the 1990-91 fiscal year
budget, staff has recommended the implementation of only three of
the fee areas originally identified for study. These include
Development and Inspections, Planning and Zoning and Parks and
Recreation.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The attached ordinance, authorizing the
user fee increases in the Development Inspections and Planning and
Zoning Departments indicates a policy of recovering 100 of the
total cost of providing County services in these two departments.
Total cost includes all indirect and direct costs identified above,
including the cost of such central services as accounting,
budgeting and data processing. The specific fees that are proposed
to be increased are as follows:
Development and Inspections
• Site Plan Review
• Small Subdivision Review
• Large Subdivision Review
• Erosion/Sediment Control Plan Review
• Subdivision Waiver/Variance
• Vacation of Subdivision Plat and
Easements
Planning and Zoning
• Variance
• Administrative Appeal
• Rezoning to Agriculture or Single Family
• Rezoning to Multi-Family
• Rezoning to Industrial
• Rezoning to Commercial
• Land Use Plan Amendment
• Special Use/Landfill
$685 + $40 per acre
$25
$220 + $45 per lot or
parcel
$100 + $100 per acre
or portion thereof
$190
$190
$190
$275
$415 + $20 per acre
or portion thereof
$660 + $25 per acre
or portion thereof
$840 + $30 per acre
or portion thereof
$945 + $30 per acre
or portion thereof
$710
$1,875
2
3 ~.
Please see the attached schedule for the detail comparison of old
and new user fee rates.
The user fees, with regard to the policy of recovering 100 of
total cost, will be reviewed periodically by the staff of the
Department of Management and Budget in conjunction with the budget
process.
The proposed user fee policy for the Departments of Development and
Inspections and Planning and Zoning both were reviewed with
representatives of the Homebuilders Association. They understood
the total cost recovery concept and the definitions of direct and
indirect costs, however, their wish was for a two-year phase in of
the user fee rate increases. Staff indicated during these
discussions that the increased user fees would go a long way in
supporting increased services such as a shorter turn around time
for site plan and subdivision reviews.
FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact of the proposed cost recovery
policy through user fees for the Development Inspections and
Planning and Zoning Departments is an increase in revenues in the
amount of $128,800. The policy rate changes would be effective
July 1, 1990. The revenue increase has been included in the FY
1990-91 budget adopted by the Board of Supervisors on May 15, 1990.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the above
stated cost recovery policy and the resulting user fee rate
increases to be effective July 1, 1990 after the second reading of
the attached ordinance on June 12, 1990.
~~~ ~~
Reta R. Busher
Director of Management and
Budget
~~ ~ ~~~
Elmer C. Hodg~
County Administrator
ACTION VOTE
No Yes Abs
Approved
Denied
Received
Ref erred
To
Motion by:
Eddy
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
Robers
1,2,3 Observations were take from the Consultant's Report.
3
....a~,,,, ,..~
,~f :..w3. ~.q~.
1
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER,
TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 1990
ORDINANCE IMPOSING OR INCREASING CERTAIN FEES
FOR SERVICES FOR DEVELOPMENT AND INSPECTIONS,
PLANNING AND ZONING, AND REPEALING PRIOR
ACTIONS CONCERNING SAME
WHEREAS, on September 20, 1989, the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, selected David M. Griffith and
Associates, Ltd. to conduct a detailed cost/revenue study focusing
upon an analysis of user fee services; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of said user fee study was to calculate
the full costs of providing specific services, compare costs with
the revenues received for these services, and recommend fee levels
to recover the full costs of services when such fees are practical;
and
WHEREAS, the Board has found that it is both equitable and
efficient to ensure that those individuals who benefit from certain
governmental services bear the cost thereof while eliminating
unintentional general service cost subsidies; and
WHEREAS, as a result of said study the Board determined that
it was in the public interest to increase certain user fees, as
modified by staff recommendations, budget work sessions, and
citizen comments in order to recover 100$ of the direct and
indirect costs of providing certain services; and
WHEREAS, Section 15.1-466.A.(i) of the Code of Virginia
(1950), as amended, authorizes the imposition of reasonable fees
and charges for the review of plats and plans and the inspection
of facilities, such fees and charges shall in no instance exceed
~`
2
an amount commensurate with the services rendered, taking into
consideration the time, skill and administrator's expense involved;
and
WHEREAS, Section 15.1-491(f) of the Code of Virginia (1950),
as amended, authorizes the collection of fees to cover the costs
of making inspections, issuing permits, advertising of notices and
other expenses incident to the administration of a zoning ordinance
or to the filing or processing of any appeal or amendment thereto;
and
WHEREAS, Section 15.1-29.14 of the Code of Virginia (1950),
as amended, directs the advertising, public hearing, and enactment
of certain fees and levies, said requirements having been satisfied
as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the first reading and public hearing on this
ordinance was held on May 22, 1990, and the second reading on this
ordinance was held on June 12, 1990.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, as follows:
1. That there is hereby established certain fees for public
services provided by and through the Roanoke County Department of
Development and Inspections relating to the review of subdivision
plats and plans and similar development services rendered for and
on behalf of citizens, as follows:
Review Site Plans
Review Small Subdivisions
(less than 5 lots or parcels,
$685 + S40 per acre
25
Review Large Subdivisions
$220 + S45 per lot or parcel
^.~
3
Review Erosion/Sediment
Control Plan $100 + 5100/per acre or portion thereof
Subdivision waiver or variance 190
Vacation of subdivision plat
and easements 150
2. That Section 8-32, "Filing Fee," of Chapter 8, "Erosion
and Sediment Control," of the Roanoke County Code is hereby amended
and reenacted as follows:
Sec. 8-32. Filing fee.
An applicant submitting a plan pursuant to this article shall
pay a filing fee of
One Hundred (5100) dollars plus One Hundred
15100) dollars for each acre or portion thereof to cover the
administrative expense of review and inspection and approval of
such plan.
3. That there is hereby established certain fees for public
services provided by and through the Roanoke County Department of
Planning and Zoning related to zoning and variance services
rendered for and on behalf of citizens, as follows:
Variance
Administrative Appeal
Rezonina
to A-1, RE or R-1
to R2, R3 R4 R5
R-MH. R6
to M1, M2 M3
to B1, B2 B3
Land Use Amendment
Special Use/Landfill
190
275
$415 + 520 Der acre or portion thereof
$660 + 525 Der acre or portion thereof
$840 + 530 Der acre or portion thereof
$945 + 530 Der acre or portion thereof
710
1 875
.~
~:.
_~ 4
Use Not Provided For Permit X145 +~55 Der acre or portion thereof
y~
PUD ~ 5 + S5 Der acre or portion thereof
S ecial Use Permit S ecial E ce tion 20
4. That in addition o the fees established herein, the
applicant shall be responsib a for the payment of the full cost of
any legal advertisement or p blication costs which may be required
by law.
5. That Resolution No. 2368, which was adopted by this Board
on August 14, 1979, and whi .established a schedule of fees for
the review of preliminary a final subdivision plats, is hereby
repealed.
6. That Resolution No. 82-213, which was adopted by this
Board on November 22, 1983, and which established a schedule of
fees for certain services fo zoning matters, is hereby repealed.
7. That Resolution No. 84-96.q., which was adopted by this
Board on June 12, 1984, and hich established a fee for variance
requests, is hereby repealed.
8. That Resolution No 85-30.E, which was adopted by this
Board on March 12, 1985, and which established a fee for
conditional rezonings and sub ivision waivers, is hereby repealed.
9. That Action No. A/2 11-86-34, item F3, which was adopted
by this Board on February 11, 986, and which established a fee for
administrative appeals to th Board of Zoning Appeals, is hereby
repealed.
l0. That the effective date of this ordinance and for the
imposition of the fees and ch rges contained herein shall be July
1, 1990.
TION FOR ITEM J-2
ADDITIONAL INFORMA
ING & INSPECTION FEES
DEVELOPMENT PLANK
•rcTT1J(~ nATE• June 12, 1990
~rJ r.1l li
of Planning Related Fees;
AGENDA ITEM' Survey calities
Twelve Virginia Lo
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
BACKGROUND: the Board asked for
At the May 22, 1990 Board medt1bY other jurisdictions.
fees charg ed by
information on review of the planning related fees charg
Attached is a summary
twelve other Virginia localities.
staff surveyed these localities to asAenu~ertof
The Planning and the basss for these fees.
indicated that their fees ~ ee a based on recovering
level of fees charged, osts, however most of
the localities ercentage.
a percentage of the lnot aware of the exact p
the localities wer are
related fees proposed for Roanoke County
The planning 100$ of the direct and indirect
based upon a policy of recovering The proposed fees are:
costs associated with these activities.
Variance
Administrative Appeal
Rezoning to Agriculture
or Single Family
Rezoning to Multi-Family
Rezoning to Industrial
Rezoning to Commercial
Land Use Plan Amendment
Special Use/Landfills .
$190
$275
$415 + $20 per acre or
portion thereof
$660 + $25 per acre or
portion thereof
$840 + $30 per acre or
portion thereof
$945 + $30 per acre or
portion thereof
$710
$1875
Respectfully submitted,
Terrance ~! H ington
Director of Planning and Zoning
Action
Motion by
Approved ( ) Eddy
Johnson
Denied ( ) McGraw
Received ( ) Nickens
Referred Robers
to
Vote
No Yes Abs
- - - - - - - -
- - 1
- - - - - -
- - i
i I
11 - - - - - - , I 1 1
N N 1 1 1 1
11 W N 1 I l 1
11 J N I I 1 1
'11 ~ N I 1 i 1
II 0 0 11 I 1 I t
11 = _ 1 1 I a 1
N
11 N O
1
1
I
u u .. u a 1 • 1 ~~ 1
11 N W N r1 1 a 1 n I H 1
II 1 q 1 A 1 I
II W S U ~' 1 1 a 1 y I
II W N V I N 1 ~.'~ 1
1 N
11 W -.' N a 1 ` 1 1
11 y 1 q 1 >^ ~ p. I
W!
II N
V 1 V 1 ...1 1 7 1
II 1- -+ N
0 1 >^ 1 o I i 1
11 s u I 1 r•s ~~~.~~
II G 1 N 1
. ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~ I
11
11 N
N ~..~.~~
. ~~ ~~~~
~.~~~~ ~ ~
~~~~.~.
1
~ 1 V W O 1
11 ~~ ~ .~
U 1
y 1 I C V V C V~ ~ y N 1
T •
11 1 1 H V .H O 0
ny 1
1
11 q ~ q C iJ i 1 6 Y ` q V ...1 •M~ C C ..M 1
~ d
1
II 11 V V ~ ~ 1 .. q 1
= ...1 O ..~ O ...~
1
•
11 N 1 C .N 7r a I N N ..q 'O V W C ..r w
y C I
1 Ld N
11 N N r-
1 7 •'q V I i"1 1 N C y C q~ C O
N '~ .~ C i
11 p N • > N
N 1 N 1
O O Y V 6 q~ 4 y N N q 1
W U y I V p i• ~. V
.1 C 1
O J 1
V 6 N ~ •
11 W N N 1 p i ...1 O ..y ..
N 7 i Y I
~. N A J y~
~ .N
d 1
11 N O 1 .^y Y N y
O I
~ C
11 i N V 1 • y ....1 q
. n.l a C 1 O. I C 4d ....1 N O N W O~ ~ a.+ 1
d
II 11
~ ^ q i
~ O 1 ~ 1 •^.1 O V
O 1
~
11 W It O
N C C L.
q ^ V Y 1 C y O
I N C V
•. . O y u I
II tl .'~ i O ....1
N d 0 O N y I ti ...1
1 ....1 O q J..1 L V C 1
11 N
1 -'~ N N 1
1 O ...1 V V~ •; y N O ...1 ...1 O. ...1
1
1
II N
11 ...1 C
1 C it N 1
I ~ d 0. 1
~. y N
..I iJ Ji •M~ n.1 ~ W ^ N 1
~
11 N y ` `
~ .
N V ..
V Y N N
V 1
~
11 m 11 ~ 1 N V N >?. Y V
V I > O O 6 d 0 ii V O C
1 >
1
9
II N Y 1 Y > 7•. N7 Z Z
y Y 1 'O d pl H V
1 ~
q V '~ .•..1 q V W 1
N > V C q rl L
w 1 i 1 !
II 11 ~ ~
W q d 0. O O
l 1 ~~~~~~~~~~
1
11 N i 1
~~ ~.~~~~. ~~.~ i
11 N ~~.~
~~ ~
~~ ~ ~.~~~• 1 1
I 1
11 ~~~~ ~
I ll 1 1 V i-+ 1
II
11 1
N 1
I 1
1 ~ p id 1
I + .•.1 I
it 1 11 1 1 l V C 1
11 ~ tl ~ 1 1 O ~ 7 1
1 11 +
11
I
i 11 1 I 1 O q W I
II
I
W N O Y 1
i 1
1 M me= 1
11
1 S It I.H ~. 1 1 1 N I!>t ~ 1
II
11 1 1••' H N V 1 1
1 1 ~O O 1
l
o u .+ ~
1
1 ..
v N 1
u N 1 I O M 1
11
1 N ~~ N'/' i I i = 1
11
11 1 11 O M 1 1 1
I O
It 1 N d I I ---_
I ~~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ 1
11 1 Y 1 ~.~ __~
~ ~~~ I
11 1 N ~~~.~
~ ~~~ ~~~~~~ 1 1
1 ~ • ..1 • 1
I I 1 ~~
N I 1 •^
^'~ q ~ q ~ I
II I
11 I
J 11 1
I I > 1f1t
I p b q i Y ..-1 V •^~ 1
V 6 0 d 0 1
1
11 1 i U 1 1 q M V V d
1 q d 1
I
II W N I v 6
1 q • q I
1 >
11 I d N 1 I ~. V C 6
q 1 C C i
11 >~ 1
II !•~ 1 d II
i N I
I 1 C V q
1 q > ....1 1 v a.. q ~ q< 1
O O ..,1 O .y N 1
II h•'1 1 ~ II I 1 O V ~ ~ W e d •1.~ d m
1
II J 1 W Y I 1 + q O
'~ j
1
II i 1 V 4 I 1 v N > O O .y.. p
II u 1 = Y 1 1 y
" ~ ~ ~O Ld N O y 1
11 O 1 i N 1 /'
I I.P1 N V V b N 1- 1
1
It J 1 H U 1N9
N 1 O 1 ~O O O N M I
I M N
11 1 O[ U 1 M 1 r- V •H N
11 r i i 0 "' I M 1 1 ~.~ ~~ ~~~~~~
1
Y m I > U M i ~~ ~. ~.~~~ ~~
I
it 1 N ~, ~ .~~
~ .. ~ ~ .~ I ~ a.. V i
11 O 1
11 W I ~~
11 1
I 1 ~
1 y ....1 Y O V ^ 1
i y... .1 O I
N so 1 11 1 1 a y ^ ..~ Z
1
u oe 1 H ll 1 ~ o e
I 1 y a
1
d 1
11 i I H N 1 I N S V .~ O V 1
It u ~ 1 1 V I V 7 rl ..~ I
N W Y 1 q "'/ r-•1
1 ~ .~ ~ a 1
II W 1 !I
` 1 ^ 1 y 7 7 a ~ b N q C ^ 1
It W f
d
1 W 11 q I i 1 6 Q d O V
r- V,,. '~ 1
^ 1 b
It t~ I N q
~ 1 N 1 V = 1 ~ ~ q I
O 1 M
11 I ~ 11 1 OO 1 V V V .• + .N O O i 1
I
11 i I Y b 1 1 i[ O O ~ =
y L M-• V `~ V 1
+
11
O i i q M I O 1 Y w- r- ~ 6 0 ...1 ^ C 1
C 1
~
r
+
i 1 O Y l~ a u'+ o~ Y I
a 1
ii r 1 r.l u „r I O In o I n V O ^! Z! ~ 1
It i 1 u H 1 i O ~O M ~n q
_ N
V"!
1
W Y O
O 1 y ^I •"'1 N V'1 1
1 •{
M V M
Il r.+ 1 d Y 1 M 1 N M M N ~~ .
.
1
Il 1 N II ... 1 N 1 ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~
i
11 d 1 N~ 1 ~~~ _
_
~~~.~~ _
1 1
11 d I 11 ~
~ ~~ ~ ~.~~ ~.~ ~ 1 1 1
11 i
11 I ~ ~~
1 N 1
I i. 1
}+ 1 1 ' ^ O 1
^ W d
i
11 I N 1 r-. N 1 1
1 O O .-. O ` C ` C 1
v
11 I 11 Y^ ~ V O 0 0 C ~ 1
~ .~ 7 v C d ..y 6 C 1
y
II I U ~ 7•. 1 C r.
O I
y
y .
i
I C J..1 Y H
O C p.1
f
11 1 i
..r .
.
y ... 1 q O d V 1 ~
~
Y O V N
Y 1
q
it II y b y
I • 1
'- .
r I Y V
i N
t
~
V ~
'' 1
11 N ~'+ ^ ~~
1 • it Y Y ~. Y
C 1
~ .
V.
O r- 1 V '
l V
~ q .rl ~. A •
V
C 1
V Y
11 1 a0 11 7 q `
~
V C 1 N ..•1 V V !. O 1 ` 1
N i q ^ V C V ^
1
=
11 1 = 11 ~ Y. ` ...1 ~ 1~1 1 V •.~ V v .., v a+ 1 ~ q
O ~ y '~.. ^ V d I.H ^ C
~
n I IN u
V 1 s^
•n'1 V ~ q ~~ ~- =
C N 1 v
1 O~ Iff ..-1 O O ~» y V I
1 i 11 ~ Y
q O
^ C •.•1 1 V • I
N '~ LO 7
II 1 O N O. ~ .ter G I P W 0 0 q
q .•M
H S M
1
p ~ C
N
Ld 1
11 1 N 11 i O. ~
1 W N C ILf b q I i 1 rl r'1 Y. .••I
•H 1 V M M I M ; M I N
• C O q +
1 O~ rl / 1
1 + •
11
11 1 Oi N O ...1 K 1 M 1 O~ ....1 . O I
+ 1 + .~ i ....
O N O 1
I
1 11 y Vf O. + + y +
+ ^ I
y ^~ 1 I ~ O d b Y ~.. C •F. T V s
II +
..r ,
1 y
.
i
~I ^ 1
0 O 1 1/l ~ P. i! t! i 7 q O~ OL ~
II O
N
1
N O p 0 ..q 0 0 7
7 0 O I
_' JY 1 b
4i p.. b I
1 M M
11 I
d O q H9 M
i t!1 V 1 1A N~~ fV 1 ."1 1 M M N
1
II 1
M M M M M
M N 1 » --
.~~~~~~~
11 i N» i 1
~ ~~~ ~.~~~~~~
1
~
11
II
1 11 ~~~
~ ~~
.~~.. ~~ ~~~ ~~.~
1 I 1
I 1
II ~
N ~'~~
11 1
1 1
1 I I
I I
11 N I I 1 I
11 N I I 1 I
11 N
° 1 1 1 p 1
u
11
11 1
I W I
1 1 ~+ 1
I
p N
N t >~ 1 1
I C 1
u _
U = 1 e
1 J 1
II ~
H 11 W 1 !
i V I W
11
Ii
J N J I
1 O 1
1 W 1
1
1
~
11 i N ! 1 Ot 1 J Y
..
1 1
11 V N N 1 I i 1 W I
it O N t6.
N I W I s I ~ 1
u J
I1 O I O 1: 1
N
11
N 1
>~ 1 W ~ y
j 1
II
11
N r I
1 H 1 m
1 J 1 = I
1
11 II 1-• 1 H 1 i 1 t..1
..~
11 tl Y 1 V 1 ~
~~~~~~~~~~~
11 1
~ ~~~~~~~~ ~.~~
~.
11 N
~~ ~~~
~~~~~~~
~
it ~~~~
- - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
, 1 1
1
M~~ ~~~_.~~
- 1 1 1 1 ,
1 1
Y N 1 1 1 1 1
1
Y W N
N ~ N 1 N
1 1. 1
1 1 t
1
1 1
~ 1
N ~ r t q 1 I 1 1
11 O D N 1 d 1 1 1 1
Y W W N 1 ~+ 1 1 1 1 1
N S N 11 1 1 1 O 1 O 1
1
r _ r i 1O 1 O 1 P I P 1
1
11 N 7 U 1 1 P 1 q 1 q 1 m
r ... N ~'~• 1 C 1 q 1 1 1 m ~
N W Of N OD 1 q 1 1 N 1 N i
M Y o~
1 L
1 N
1
1 A
1 1
11 W H N •r 1 L 1 ~ 1 q 1 q 1 1
p N U 1 1 q 1 m 1 d 1 !'
i
N r 1 d 1 1 T 1 T 1 ~
M H ~+ Y 1 1 T 1 1 1 ~ ~
N t r ~ 1 O 1 1 N t N 1 n
N O r 6 t i 1 N 1 1 1 ~.~
~
N r ! 1 1 ~~~~ ~.~ ~~~~ ~.~~
1
N Y ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~. ~~ ~~~ I 1 1
; .
~
11 ~ ~ I 1 1 ~
_
n
^
C
1
~ Y M-
d
1
1 1
1 q 1
^ O 1 N 1 •.
-1
1. O N 1 P
1
C 1
4
Y r C d d ~ m 1 1 4 V 1 q d ~+ i ; ~
N N N 1
O d
11 a.
l
1
6 T` ...1
1 d
N
t
1 N
1 N - y 1
..
ti
Y - O ~ d > T
N r ~ q 1 N M
1 N > d v .•-1 1
a.l
1 Y O .H L N 1
1 Y
r
tl W Y d N C N r N d
O 1 J-t 1 N O D > > q 1
N
1 N D O 1
1 N O O
~
.
Y O N q
X
11
~ 1 N 1 N V Y O V 1
1 O 1 O .C 1 O d V 1
N
W V M, m
r Y ..y N
q 1 O C N N
i O
O V 1 V P 1 V T d 1
p Y
Y N O ~ O r~ V `
L
.
1 V d V ` / 1 ,.,1 1 t M 1
11
N N L 1 P 1 pl d 1 P d d 0 1
N O y y p O 1
P q y~ p. T
1 O. N 1
1 C C N
1 C
~ I
!
N ~ N d N V C
p V O+ N
r
q 1
1 1 C O Y d v- d C d 1 C
1 -r
1 -~ O 1
C
....1
1
N C O d ~ N
U
d N L ~
1 N
....1 `
1 .•-1 O
a 1 ...1
•p
1 1
1 ti V N
V ~ .4- d
U T ..-1
11
T L 1 `
.
-1
1 N •-•1 w m v N
1 ~
1 d f...
1 ` 1
O > ~
M N V
H
q
N ~
1 V O ~
1 ..+ 4C d }1
1 ~
1 1, T 1 Y m 1
II O OI L O
•.
n
N N
1
1 L ~ L N
1 Y O q
i
`
1 d .1 > 1
~
1
~
-
11 ! u L aJ M N V d 1 ` 1 L L Y d q V- L 1
d q
1 d 1 d N d
11 m r N L V~ ` ~ 1 d N N O W O^ ~ 1 ` V 1
N
-~
d L 1 > 1 > N O d '0
I ~
t ~ ~ O n. ` 1
1 ~
q q N
r ]
11 d
O p 10
1 V O 1. L d •--1
1 O O w
q
!
1 6 N v Y 1
1 !
u r d o q Y L N
>
!
6 N O t O. N Z
i 1 1 1
-
Y N 1~ q ~ N 7 •.ti • O ; ;
~ --
1
11 N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
1 1 1 1
~
1 1 1 1
1 11 / t 1 1 1
11 1 N 1 1 / 1 1 1
11 1 U 1 / i 1 1 1
11 1 Y 1 1 1 4 1 1
1
N 1 N I 1 1 1 1
11 1 N 1 I / O Y 1 1
1
11 1 OC 11 1 1 1 O / 1
1
tl 1 W u 1 1 1 N C 1 1
1
N 1 S 11 1 1 1 H ~ 1 1
1
r 1 H p 1 1 1 ~ 1 1
u 1 o a 1 I 1 .. ~ 1 1 i
11 1 N 1 1 1 O M 1 1 1
11 1 U 1 1 1 ~ I I 1
M 1 Y 1 1 1 d 1 1 1
N 1 r 1 1 I 1 1
~
N 1 r 1 1 --
- - - --- --~~- ----
1
r 1 N - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - 1 1 1 N 1
M 1 - - - - 1 1 1 I 1 1
^'~
N ~ I Y
q 1
Y i 11 ~ 1 ~ 1 . V d
1
U I t N 1 1 1 1 N q L m
N 1 W r 1 1 ~ 1 1 i v V O_ 1
N 1 d N 1 1 1 1 / L O 6 1
11 ~- 1 d r 1 1 1 1 1 d q 1
1
1 6 M
11
~ 1 1 1 1 i ~. N .~ s
1
1
-1
r 1 M 1 1 1 ...
1 O -ter
O 1
11 1 W M / 1 ~ 1 1 W- O+ q
.H I
Y ! 1 V r 1 1 1 1 1 C
1
N V 1 z r 1 1 1 1 1 O ^I O
1
Ii O 1 ! U 1 1 O 1 O 1 O 1 O C O Ill
11 V 1 U O 1 O 1 O i ~ 1 ti of N 1
1
11 1 IiC N ~ 1 ~p 1 ~ M 1 N 1 M M N
1
11 > 1 ! N N 1 H / M 1 1 1
~
it m 1 7 N M 1 1 ~~ _~~~ .~ ~_ ~~ ~ ~_
1
11 1 r -~_~ _~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ 1 1 1
-
N O 1 ~~~~ ~. I 1 I 1 ;
1 ~
11 W 1 Y 1 L 1 1 i 1 !
1
N tD 1 r 1 d 1 N ~ V ••"1 1 1 1 N
1 1 1
11 ! 1 1--1 Y L 1 O 1 N `~- O q 1 1 1
p S 1 i Y ~~ 1 1 N O W
1 1 1 O 1
11 V 1 OC N 1 d 1 d ~- d 1 1 1 ~~ JJ 1
11 1 W N d 1 1 C d~ d ; 1 1 N ~i 1
r iA 1 d N i 1 V 1 1 O •--1 1 1 1 O 1
N W I M ^ V 1 q 1 N C S P
1 1 1 to 0 1
p
1 W U N ' / ~ 1 ~ O ~
1
1 1 O 1
1
y 1 N Y O
W ~-
L
d 1 I O
r 1 O N m Ilf ~ O N rl
N
1
1 ~ ti
t L 1
11 Z 1 N ~ 1 M V 1 t- a•• 1
1 1 1 M 1
1
q o 1 u N O M 1 q 1 O O d t~ 0 1 1
1
N JJ
Y H t ! 1 t 1 w w ~~! 1 ~ 1 O 1
_
1 1
11 ! 1 V Y !
1 ~• C
O C 1 O~
1 O
/ p
1 ~~
1
1 W N S O N
N i 1 O O 1 O~ P O
1 ~ 1 O 1 N 1
y
11 1 d N N N m
1 1 M ~
1 tf
1 M 1 M M 1
M u 1 N r M
1
1 ~'-
M
/
1 1
1
~_
N O. 1 Y H
1 1
~.~ ~.~ ~.~ ~ ; ~~ ~
~_-
1
Y ~~ ~
O N 1
H 1 Y - 1 1 1 1 1
L T 1
~.
11 1 It
i~ P
r
1 1
I 1~
1 1 1 O
~~ q 1
1 +~
N 1
O C
1 N N d
1
1 d
/ 1 1
1 ~~
11
N 1 11 O d O ~ O O •'~ 1 1 ] 1 1
1
1 `
t
a~ oC L Y^ v C
1 r 1 1 O i 1 m
1 m 1
It
~~ w• ~,. O
1 U ~~ I 1 1 1 1 ~ V > 1
11
H
1 N r- ~ N 1 1 d 1
1 1 V ^~ q 0 i
N
d N m 0 d Y m
11 1 tO r ~ 1
1
1 ~ 1
1 ~~
1 q .r 1
N t. .~
11 1 Z 11 ~ C ~
q a 1 1 V 1
1 1 1 ~. q 0 1
~ V ~ V
II 1 H U V d V
1 1 q 1 1 O .... ~ V 1
11 1 Z N q G= q C` C O
1 1 ~ N 1
1 Y C i
/ ap
~ ~~
~
11 ~ 1
11 1
C O i p m 1 1 1 M C M 1
N
1-
-1
<V q 0 ~
1 11 N ~ ~ 1 1 ~ 1
1 1 d ~ 1
11
M it
.r W t
N 1 W p .-1 1
1 1 M V 1
1 •
4 1
t 4
v
- •ti
~ M
~
N 1 O. 11 M M m
d 1 1 q 1 1 .
r
1 e 1
•
4 V
11 1 11
V- 1 1 4 1
1 1 O N O d 1
11 1 N t ~ 4 a+ t i C 1 1 O 1 1 O t O d 0 O 1
® Vf O
N 1 N ~ ~"~
d i
O 1 O O 1 O
!
1 O 1 O OC O V 1
11 t 11 O IT ~ ~ v9 O N V
N 1
1 O ~•-1 1
N
1 N ~ 1
1 As
r 1 Y 0 6 N i N u~ 1 ~
I ~ 1 1 M 1 r- M 1
.-.
1 r t .o b q
W 1 M I M 1 1 1
r
N 1 M M M M M H L 1
1 ~
II 1 r
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~_~ ~~ ~
1 I 1 1
11 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
1
1
1
1 N
1
1 1
r N I 1 1 1 3 1 1
N U 1 1 1 1 W ( 1
11 11
u N 1
1 1
1 x 1 1 Z
1 1 1
1
u N 1 O 1 V ~ Z i r / 1
1
U N 1 Z 1 ! 1 0 1 ae 1
t
Y N 1 O 1 W / ~, 1 O 1
1
N N 1 i 1 OD 1 D. 1 d 1
1
N !- ^ 1 S 1 t i 1 3 1 •
I
11 r 1 V 1 1 ! 1 W 1 O
1
11 • 1 r. 1 ! 1 S 1 Z 1 u
t
r ! M O 1 oc 1 ~ 1 1 1
1
11 u r V 1 1 1 W 1 TC
II O r 1 li. 1 W 1 O 1 O 1 ! i
N Y O 1 O 1 O 1 1 1 W 1
1
11 N ~"' 1 1 1 a 1 > 1 °~
11 N 1--1 1 Y 1 ~' 1 1 h- 1 1"y ;
~ -1
~ u u W 1
W
N 1 V 1 V 1 1 1
.~
11 11 S 1 1
~~ ~~
~~~~~ ~ ~~~
.~
11 U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~
N ~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~__
r
- -
r
.
" ^ 1 r
,.
N
~ r C 1 Y
N
r ~ r O C 1 a
1
Y O O y y ....1
r
N q 1
N W W
1/ S N N ~ ~ Y
Y D C O OI 1 a
N "'~ O~ q 1 11
11 N 7 M A ~^ 1 ^ M
1
W N !a q m
Y
W~ T
N
^
F- r r1 T
M 1 •
r r
^ ~
^
r 1~
N N 1
r L~ q M
m 1
W i
~
A N yt
11
^ O~ ~ N 1 r
r
i 11 a D O ....1 1 ~ ^
A O M > > m ` 1 t a
^ i 6 W ; M
a
11 a ~~ ~.~~~ M
.~ ~
N
~. 1 N Y
^ ~
H
.~ O
N
y M
~
m q N ^
q
Y n 4 / V 1 O ~ ` N N
Y
w Ys O 1 V
r y .. o r
r
r W n w t +' 1 v •
1 0l >
a W a y .~ a.. c
r
O m m 1 C 'f• O
r r N
..~ w V D` N
O ~
a a
N ;
q C Y
T
GG N V
LI y ...1 Y
H
q
~
N W ...
q 1 JJ Y! - M N
r
m
N n ~
11
o c 1 ~ c
11 n ^ ~
W. Yt L M
q 1 m
n V) N O~
O m ~ N
N J
M N
1 O O m 11
~
`
M N L 1 i N 0 ~ p
Y ~
`
11 i Y Y Y 1 V 11
11 m N d N y ~ 1 .. r .. q M
11
Y n ~ ~~ E O
V- 11
_'
t
1 W
M
OC 4 7 O
M L ~i Y VI
;
1
11 N ~~.~ ~ ~ ~~ N
11 1 n 1 H
1 Y Y
II 1 a / O 1 a
+
u 1 N o +
N
1/ 1 11 O O ; M
~
11 1 n ~ C
1 11
~
11 1 oe u M
1 r
tl 1 W N ~ 1 r
OI
Y 1 S M O a!
1 Y
C
N 1 !_ N M- q
1 N
...1
11 / O r ^U
N
!b C
Y 1 ; Y
p
O
11 t
1 r ~ ~
r
a th ~ ~ a
N
1 Y N
N
11
11 1 1
r ~ 1 Y
Y 1 N ~.~ ~~~~ M
n 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 N
11 1 r 1 n
11 1 ~ n 1 M
11 1 6 r 1 U
11 1 W M 1 Y
u 1 O_ r 1 r
11 ~ 1 d n 1 Y
It -- 1 i a 1 r
u I Y 1 u
a 1 W u 1 r
11 i / V Y 1 N
11 U 1 Z r 1 N
11 O 1 6 11 1 11
1
J a O a
1
q DC n N ~ ^ n
11 NO 1 ~ Y M 1 Y
11 1 11 ~~~~~~~~ Y
n O 1 ~~~_~~ Y
n W 1 N 1 ^
Y cD 1 N 1 N
11 OC 1 ~' N p
Y i 1
1 ~"1 M H ~ r
i N
~ p
~
Y S
N u 1 aC Y H H 1 r
1
~r
11 1 W Y M'y ~ r
N N 1 D. N J-1 Y1 ~.+ 1 N
NY W ~ ... a Y q q q 1 i~
i a
i
W y a q V V U 1
M
1
Y O Y. c.f ~ m p
Y Z 1 t_
r ` O O O 1 M
n O
a 1
1 6 a O ~H V~ ~H 1 O r
1 L-•
r ~ W
O m 1 ~~
1 V p
u ~ N
O~
1 o m m 1
1 W a
a
u
-. ~
,~
1 d N
r
~ 1
~
.-
M 1
1-
-1 ~
.,
.
N Y t~ r~ r- rr
~ Y
Y d
11 d 1
1
1 N ~ ~ ~ a
~~~
II i 1 N
1 ~-~~
1 N N
p 1 4 ~ a
N 1 Y 1 N r
Y 1 Y .~ 1 M N
11 1
1 r m O
Y
N
n 1 4
1 r t/ 1 C N
n 1 r U N 1 m 3 n
aD H q
n
11
11 1
` C C 1 O
1 E M ~~ r/ M
11 1 H R O V m q 1 V a
q
11 r
1 Z M N q A d ;
D
N _
O Y
1
`4
1
11 0
ti Y
1 >- N
ti
O ~ aJ 1
11 r
i W Y 4
6 1 M D_
N N
11 ~
1 OC
n
m 1
N
a
N
11 1
O~ V 1 t
1 N ~ Y
m m C 1 •^
11 / M b
r
N ]~ O 1 O ~
u 1
N
1 Y O O Rf V 1 O q Y
N 1 Y .~ U9
r
tl
U 1 V-
1 a ~'- M r
p 1 M ~~ 1 ~.~~~ r
r
1
u
a u ~
N N 1 Y
N Y Y
n r ~ r
Y Y N
1
Y T N
M
11 H Y ~ M
u H a 1 o a
N
u
~
V
r i n • ~
u
11 V N O 1 O N
Y O n V 1 Gr II
N Y
11 Y = 1 N
11 u o r
11 a O 1 t Y
11 u ~ M
n Y ~ 1 N Y
11 i
r
~- ~. ~ 11
11 ~~~~-
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR ITEM J-2
DEVELOPMENT PLANNING i INSPECTION FEES
MEETING DATE:
June 12, 1990
AGENDA ITEM: Survey of Development Related Fees;
Six Virginia Localities
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
BACKGROUND
At the May 22, 1990 Board meeting the Board asked for
information on re ~ie of the Devel pmen tyrelated fees lchargednby
Attached is a summa y
six other Virginia localities.
The Development Inspection staff surveyed these localities to
ascertain the level of fees charged, and the basis for these fees.
A number of the localities indicated that their fees were based on
recovering a per 1 i ti es werehnot awaretof the dexact percentageever
most of the loca
The Development related fees proposed for Roanoke County are
based upon a policy of recovering 100% of the direct and indirect
cost associated with these activities. The proposed fees are:
Site Plan Review
Small Subdivision Review
Large Subdivision Review
Erosion/Sediment Control
Plan Review
Subdivision Waiver/Variance
• $685 + $40 per acre
Vacation of Subdivision Plat and
Easements
$25
$220 + $45 per lot or
parcel
$100 + $100 per acre
or portion thereof
$190
$190
SUBMITTED BY:
Arnold Covey
Development and Inspections
Director
____ ---
------------------
----------- --- VOTE
ACTION
No Yes Abs
Approved ( ) Motion by: Eddy
Denied ( ) Johnson
Received ( ) McGraw
Referred Nickens
To Robers --
DEVELOPMENT FEES FOR THE FOLLOWING COUNTIES:
1 - Land Disturbing, Erosion Control Permit Fee
2 - Site Plan Review Fee
3 - Subdivision Review Fee
City of Salem
1 - $50.00 (maximum) or $10.00/acre
2 - No Fee
3 - $25.00 - Resubdivision
$50.00 - 1-5 lots Subdivision
$50.00 plus $10.00/lot - more than 5 lots
City of Roanoke
1 - $10.00 (flat fee)
2 - $50.00 /acre
3 - $50.00 plus $10.00/acre
Albemarle County
1 - $75.00 Application Fee
Up to 9 i nspeee li f notren compl eance aw th approved plan n
Only charge f
2 - $520.00 Preliminary
$260.00 Administrative Approval Final Plan
$720.00 (Only is Plaon al) Commission reviews final prior
to Preliminary pp
$300.00 After Preliminary Approval
$30.00 Amendment
$130.00 Major Amendment
$65.00 Relief of Condition of Approval
3 - $65.00 Preliminary Plat - 3 lots or less
$260.00 plus $1.00/lot - 4 lots or more
$390.00 plus $1.00/lot - Final Plats for Commissioner
Approval
$30.00 Review Fee - Family or Administrative
$15.00 Exempt Plat
$65.00 Condominium Plat
$65.00 Waiver of Subdivision Ordinance
Chesterfield County
1 - $600.00 Program Administrative Fee
2 - $820.00 plus $45.00/acre - Commercial, Industrial,
Institutional Sites - Multifamily
$870.00 plus $10.00 dwelling/unit
Residential Sites
$520.00 - Master
$370.00 - Revised
3 - $345.00 plus $15.00/lot - New Tentative Approval
$370.00 plus $800/lott- FRnalwApprovaltive Approval
$65.00 plus $
Henri_co Count
1 - No Fee but Escrow Account - Minimum $500.00
(Anything over 5,000 sq. ft.)
2 - $440.00 plus $20.00/actual acre - Plan of Development -
Commercial and Multifamily
3 - Conditi95a00ApPusv$5.00/lot -$(d~fferentsphasesjlot
2nd $
Loudon County
~ - $12.50/lot plus $86.00 - Subdivision
$37.50/acre plus $86.00 - Commercial
2 - Non-Residential Site Plan - Preliminary fee - (greater
than 4.9 acres or more)
$2,330.00 P1 rs f$a0tion0/~fr acre rforsanytOhing rabove 120
$20.00/acre o
acres.
Final Site Plan - $3,100.00 plus $140.00/acre for 1st 2
acres plus $40.00/acre above 20 acres.
Preliminary/Final - (4 9 acres of less)
$3,000.00 plus $220.00/acre or fraction - 1st Step Review
3 - Non-Residential Subdivision - Preliminary - (5 or more
new lots)
$3,570.00 plus $120.00/lot for 1st 10 lots, plus $30.00
per lot
thereafter.
Record Plat - $3,530.00 plus $280.00/lot for 1st 10 lots,
plus $30.00/lot thereafter.
Preliminary Record - (2 - 4 new lots) - $4,910.00 plus
$350.00/lot
Rural (Private Well & Septic) - Preliminary - (5 or more
new lots) $1,570.00 plus $120.00/lot for 1st 20 acres
plus $30.00/lot thereafter.
Record Plat - $1,450.00 plus $110.00/lot for 1st 20
acres, $30.00/lot thereafter.
$1,380.00 plus $$350.00/lot - (2 - 4 new lots)
Urban (served by public water and/or sewer) - Preliminary
Separated Record Option - $1,870.00 plus $120.00/lot for
1st 20 lots plus $30.00/lot thereafter.
Record Plat - $1 ,450.00 plus $110.00/lot for 1st 20 lots,
lus $30.00/lot thereafter.
Subdivision Waiver - (1 new lot) - $2,180.00
Family Subdivision - $1,730.00 plus $150.00 for each new
lot created.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR ITEM J-2
DEVELOPMENT, PLANNING ~ INSPECTION FEES
MEETING DATE: June 12, 1990 .
AGENDA ITEM: Survey of Planning Related Fees;
Twelve Virginia Localities
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
BACKGROUND•
At the May 22, 1990 Board meeting the Board asked for
information on review fees charged by other jurisdictions.
Attached is a summary of the planning related fees charged by
twelve other Virginia localities.
The Planning staff surveyed these localities to ascertain the
level of fees charged, and the basis for these fees. A number of
the localities indicated that their fees were based on recovering
a percentage of their direct and indirect costs, however most of
the localities were not aware of the exact percentage.
The planning related fees proposed for Roanoke County are
based upon a policy of recovering 100$ of the direct and indirect
costs associated with these activities. The proposed fees are:
Variance
Administrative Appeal
Rezoning to Agriculture
or Single Family
$190
$275
$415 + $20 per acre or
Rezoning to Multi-Family
Rezoning to Industrial
Rezoning to Commercial
Land Use Plan Amendment
Special Use/Landfills
portion thereof
$660 + $25 per acre or
portion thereof
$840 + $30 per acre or
portion thereof
$945 + $30 per acre or
portion thereof
S71o
$1875
Respectfully submitted,
Terrance }! H ington
Director of Planning and Zoning
Action
Approved ( )
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred
to
Motion by
Eddy
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
Robers
Vote
No Yes Abs
---------------------------------------
II I 1 1 I
W 11 1 I i
J II 1 I 1 1
9 11 I I 1 1
0 0 II I I 1 1
W W 11 A I 1 I I
x N II O 1 1 1 1
u .-1 u a 1 1 1 1
N '! N ••`I I • 1 1 I~ 1
W 11 I Ow I I O 1
W O N L 1 q 1 It 1 I1 1
W 11 Y 1 I O 1 N 1
~• H• 11 a 1 N 1 O I I
N 11 O i L I •ti 1 J..1 1
W i 11 a••~ i q I I N I
1•~ r 11 V 1 Y I >•. 1 7 I
i 11 O 1 f•. I ••~ I P I
O 11 1 1 9 1 9 1
11 I N I •"f 1 i 1
11 I 1 1 t
. . ~~ ~ . . ~ . ~ ~ . . . ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ . ~ .
II 1 I 1 1
11 1 i./ i I 1 Y Y I
N 1 C 1 I 6 L Y C •~ Y O I
11 1 q C id 1 1 H Y ••M O O >h W~ +•~ N 1
N I Y V Y 9 ~• I 1 d Y t C C •••~ P •r 1
N II I a •wr i• ~ O I 1 q F~ d i q Y .r .H C C .•1 1
W II N 1 9 •"'~ Y W I N 1 N d^ O t •.y O •H O •N 1
W 11 ++ I •••1 d > N 1 +•1 1 ++ N N •.+ O V w C •.M .~ 1
4• II N 1 V 6 a. L Y N I N I N 'J N C +~ C q~ C O M O 1
II O i C i ••••1 ^ •.•1 ••-1 C I O I O Y Y Y d q J•1 G O H ••••1 C I
O 11 Y 1 •.••1 Y N L N ~ 1 Y 1 V C N N ••••1 Y q •.y N q I
O II 1 i/ •wy q O 1 1 7 •.y L N q J +J ~ O J I
IV II P 1 +.1 OI q ••'•1 ~ C 1 P I a O N V C L C d I
11 C I O C L ^ q ~[ I C 1 C~ • •ti N O N V•• O 7 O 1
N 11 ••"1 1 C •••+ q ^ V Y I •••M I •••• O V Y •y C F•1 d •~ ~•• ~•d 1
H 11 N I N 6 0 O N N 1 N I N C V L ~+ O •
N II ••~ I O ••-1 Y V •••'1 •w•1 O I ••~ I •••1 O q •.-• O y 7 I
i II L 1 O N N ~ C 1 ~+
I +•1 •.y .• L V V H Y L V C 1
m 11 L 1 L L L I ~. I L Y N N O •H •-1 O. •.••1 Y O 1
11 Y i N Y N Q Y Y N 1 Y I Y •N +~ JL M•• .y ~ W ^ N d d I
II > I Y > i• q t t Y I > 1 > O N L d 6 V L Y N N I
II 'O I Y~ q •••1 L a.+ Y I O 1 ~~ O O C d 0 i•[ Y • C Y 1
11 i I 1L q d d O O •1~ 1 i 1 i q V ~ •.•1 q Y W d a I.•1 L. 1
11 I I I I
1 II I I I I
1 11 1 1 1 1
1 /l 1 I 1 L .••. 1
1 II I I 1 O 4.1 1
i 11 I I 1 + ••~+ I
1 II t 1 I I Y C 1
1 K Il I I I O L 7 1
1 W 11 O Y I i I r.. Y 1
1 x II N ~. 1 I 1 O q W I
1 H 11 N V 1 I i M 1! 1
1 O II M q 1 1 1 N Mf t 1
I 11 ~ 1 1 1 b 0 i
1 11 •• ~(j I I 1 i- N 1
I II O M I ! I O ...~ r- 1
1 11 ~ I I 1 ~ I
1 U d I I I 6 I
I II I 1 1 1
1 11 1 I I 1
I J II i 1 1 ~ • w•H I
1 i II 1 I > Vf •••I 1 q L q L 1
1 W 11 1 1 7 b q 1 Y •w•1 Y •~ I
1 d 11 I 1 q M Y Y 1 ~. d 0 6 0 1
t 1 6 I I 1 I V 6 1 q d 6 1
F•• I i 11 I 1 i• L C d 1 > q q 1
-r I ~ II i I C Y q q I C C I
J I W II 1 1 q > ••••1 I L L q V. q i i
i I V 11 I 1 O L L I O O •-'1 O ••••~ N I
V I = II 1 I t q O I v- w d w O. m 1
O t i II I I ~••~ N > M~ 1 1
_+ i r+ a Ir. t I ar l e e e e v- o I
1 O/ N N I o I N N L. I.P! 1 A b i+ 1\ o ++ I
>r I i II ."~ I M 1 b O O N 1 Lff N 1- 1
m I ~ II M I M I M V `~ M I N M M 1
I II 1 1 1 1
W I II 1 I I I
f0 I 11 1 I • w-1 1 L Y I
O 1 H II 1 1 7 •••1 Y I O Y ^ I
x I : n 1 1 ~ o 0 1 •wr s t
u 1 O II I I N x d I Y a 1
1 W 11 I 1 Y ~ 1 Y ••••1 O Y I
N 1 d II Y 1 I •••1 •w•1 Y V I L C i. ^ •--1 I
W 1 11 L I 1 q •--1 ••••1 V 1 V 7 ...~ .•••1 1
W I W II V 1 1 L a •.•1 O I q ~ •.y ~ d 1
W 1 N 11 q 1 i 1 ~ 7 ~ a 1 ~• 0 ^ Y O 1
I ~ 11 ~ I N i 6 !: d O Y 1 N N q C ^ 1
Z 1 11 N 1 m 1 Y = ^ I NY N W ,..y I
O 1 J II M I I V L L O I M 1 L L q 1
1••'1 1 i 11 1 O 1 R O O L x I t •.•1 O O ~ I
H 1 1••1 II + 1 N I Y w w O I t Y Y w Y~ Y 1
i I V II 1 ..~ 1 w C 1 6 0 ~I ^ C I
V I W 11 O 1 1 O u'f O C 1 O Y R 7 N O off Y I
-•1 1 d II O 1 O 1 O b M V9 q I R Y O ^ f ,G ! L I
J 1 N II •••1 1 M I •••1 ••H •••• N 1 ~ >t[ .•~ I!7 N 1
d I 11 ~•- I N I M M M M I M Y M N M 1
d 1 II I 1 1 1
1 II 1 1 I I
1 II 1 1 I 1
1 II 1 a+ 1 1 1
1 II Y~ I .••. N 1 1 w V•. d 0 1
I 11 L i• I ~ O 0 0 ••N 1 1 O O .••. O O C O ~.d I
I- 11 ~ •••M O O I C L i.l 4.1 p p I 1 4•+' C JJ • yJ y L O L ~.• C I
I If iJ .•y Y Y .•~ I q O~ +r 6 1 I r+ C ~••• ~ ..r C d •H d C I
1 11 ~ ^~ • 1 i~ V I I O C H it Y M-1 I
1 f0 II 7 q "~ 1 i•• Y Y Y L •wr I I Y V L O Y t q L 1
I = 11 V IL. Y !• Y C ( N •••i L L >^ L O L 1 Y 1 L ~.
1 ~•9 II •N 1 L ••••1 L H 1 Y •••1 V V .•••~ V O 1 a. V L N V N V I
1 Y Y V V q •H L q •^ I
1 i 11 L Y V •H V I OL ^ q q •N q . J••1 1 V 1 q 7 q t q ^ Y C Y R. ^ C 1
O II OI H A ^ q Q I ~ q ~~ ~^ ~~ ~ N I q i ~~ O 'A L t^ Y 6 ~Lf ^ C I
I N 11 i OI ~ q 1 C I O W 0 0 q 0 C •~ I ~ 1 O ~~ b •..1 O O w~ ~. ~p O O I
1 W 11 C VY •~ ~fI q I i I •••1 N W ti H S 1 •••~ I •••1 > b 7 N V 7 M V V 1
I CL II O •H M I M I Y M M I M 1 M I M N M ~ L C i
I II' = N •.•1 • 1 O .•N ..y . O 1 I • • C O q t . L 1
1 II t id + ^ 1 ++ a + + Y + ^ ~•+ I t t t •••~ i •N + • O ~ •--1 ^ 1
1 II C w••1 ^ 1 v C •••~1 ^ .... 1 1 V. V. N V O O N O 1
1 N O C O 7 0 O I ••N O O 7 0 O 1 off 1 O a O a b Y 1 C `H a Y~ I
1 it O q VY ! I.ff y 1 ~tf N O u9 i 0 V N I b 1 A i! i !' OL ~ q O N Ci > I
1 11 .••1 ••M N 1 N •••1 •••I M N 1 •••1 I M !r b N 1
II N N K I N M N N M I N I N M M M 1
I II 1 I I 1
~ . . . . ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . .
11 i 1 I 1
II 1 1 1 1
II I 1 I 1
11 I I 1 1
II I 1 I 1
II I 1 I I
11 I W 1 I O 1
a 11 1 >r 1 1 y 1
~ u s 1
H II W I = I O 1 O I
J u J I i 1 u 1 .~ 1
i tl i I O 1 I W 1
y 11 N I Q 1 W 1 1••~1 1
O 11 I I J 1 W 1
J II W I 4. I O I O 1
II O 1 O I i 1 W I
II 1 1 x 1 -~ 1
II > 1 f I W 1 N 1
II F- 1 H• I m I W 1
II H 1 1••1 1 J 1 x I
II V 1 V 1 i 1 V 1
II 1 1 1 I
Y• W ^ 1 1 1 1 1
1
N ~ M 1 N ~ 1 1 1 1
11 O O M ~ 1 1 1
Y W W tl 1 d 1 1 1 1 1
4 x N p 1 1 i
tl V rl p 1 !. 1 1 1 1 1
11 N 1 1 I
tl W p ^ 1 b 1 O_ 1 O 1 O 1 1
1
N W GC M m 1 G I q 1 OI 1 P 1 ~
Y W tl O~ 1 q 1 q 1 m
N Y. H tl ti 1 q 1 1 1 I m 1
Y N p 1 ~ 1 w 1 N I N 1 T 1
N W~ Y 1 1 q 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 ~"1 1
Y -~ M r 1 Y 1 Y 1 q 1 q 1 1
4 i tl ~ 1 1 a. 1 r 1 d 1 ~` 1
^ o ^ O 1 0 1 1 >, 1 !. 1 ..•~ 1
Y / ~1
p i 1 iG 1 N 1 1
Y Y I N 1 N 1 n 1
1 1 1 I 1 1
tl ~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
^ r _
Y • c ~ 1 1 1 1
Y Y P O 1 w 1 1 L .H w 1 1 1 .~ 1
Y tl C d d .~ L 1 1 ~ d 1 1 1 .~ 1
tl Y ` t O N ~1 1 1 01 1 q
M N M >/ ~ ~ d~ D s. V ..y
tl W Y d w C N L N d q 1 N / N > d y V .y / 1 ~ 1 w w N 1
u W M O V q q O O 1 y 1 w 1 N 1. 1 N y 1
1 L O p > > q 1 y 1 y O 1 y w y w 1
p YV Y ••-~ N y .r- m y ].c t N 1 N V y O V 1 N 1
M tl N O ~ O w O q 1 p 1 O ` . L w e 1 N O p 0 1
M Of ^ C V N i q N N L w w ~ ~ 1 O 1 O L 1 O d V 1
O O 1 V 1 V d V ` y / V 1 V P 1 V y, p 1
N O M O L L 1 1 ti ~ d d 1 1
tl li Y V P w . w d a V C 1 P 1 T N q d "~ 1 ~ N 1
11 M C O d ~ N \ P ~. 1 P I OI d 1 O. d d 0 1
q 1 C 1 C O L d V-. d C d 1 C 1 C C N 1 C > ! O 1
Y ~ 4 i. -.-1 V ! W. d d w L 1 .r
Y N N ~ 01 y O V~ q 1 1 V~ d' d L ~ 1 +Nr 1 ~~ 1 V N 1
O ~ 1 1 d y 1
N i N L L -.Gi N `
11 m p w V ` G L 1 y 1 y~ q ~ d N 1 L 1 ~
M y .~ ` d 1 ~ I ~. y d q w t 1 1 y T ....1 1 OI 1
d .--1 v-. L d ` y 1 d 1 d N N D. v.-. L ~ d •~ 1 ~ > 1
11 tl d > -.r q q y1 d P O 1 d 1 d > q 1 d N d O I
N 4 d v q y L w ~ d q 1 > 1 > N ~ d q ..r N 1 > 1 ~ V 1 > .~ ! V 1
1 Sf 1 D u7 w O L y d ~--. 1 V 1 V ~ O 1 D ate. GI 1
p M Y. q ! N ~ •.1 i O 1. 1 i i i N O L d N =• q 1 i 1 i N .r H
11 M 1 i ~+ L L I
1 1 1 1 1 1
II
11 1 N 1 1 I 1 1
11 1 p 1 1 1 1 1 1
N 1 Y 1 1 1 1 I 1
11 1 N 1 1 1 1 1 1
U 1 p 1 1 1 1 1 I
p 1 CC tl 1 I 1 ~ 1 1 1
N 1 W Y 1 1 1 1 1 1
p 1 S N 1 1 1 O y / 1 1
tl 1 H M 1 1 1 O •.1 1 1 1
H 1 O tl 1 1 1 N C 1 1 1
N 1 Y 1 / 1 M ~ 1 1 1
N / N 1 1 1 \ 1 1 1
M 1 tl i 1 1 •• :lf 1 1 1
N 1 Y I 1 1 O 1 1 1
4 I n 1 1 1 = 1 1 1
n 1 p 1 1 1 d 1 1 1
1 I 1
N 1 ~~~~~~ _~~_~ 1 1 1 1
. ~ ~ ~ ~ .
4 1 n _ _ ~ _ ~ ; _ ..
11 1 .--~ N 1 1 1 1
n 1 i tl I I 1 1 1 N N 1
N 1 W tl 1 1 1 1 1 Y
N 1 d p t 1 1 1 1 V d q 1
N Y 1 d tl 1 1 1 1 / N q t m 1
p H 1 tl I 1 I 1 1 i d y d 1
n rr 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 ++ o d 1
tl r 1 W M I 1 1 1 1 d q 1
Y i 1 v tl I 1 1 I 1 N •--1
N u I Z p 1 1 1 1 1 0~ 1
U O 1 1i-1 tl 1 1 1 1 1 O. q O I
11 1 Y O 1 1 1 1 1 " y .~
11 1 oC N b 1 1 O 1 1 1 O •r O 1
11 i 1 i N N 1 O 1 ti 1 O I O 1 O H O V7 1
ii 00 1 ? Y M 1 b 1 1 1 u) 1 Of N 1
It i N 1 1 r~ 1 M 1 N 1 M ~ N 1
n O 1 --~ ~ I 1 1 1 1
11 W 1 Y _
N cfl 1 n 1 1 1 i
u ac 1 H tl o 1 >• 1 1 1 1 1
N i 1 u y 1 d 1 N L V +1 1 1 ^ 1
1 i
tl x 1 Z Y v / O 1 N v- O q 1 N 1
11 u 1 oC N 1 1 1 m
1 1 N O W 1
1
N t!a 1 d tl r_ 1 d 1 d t_ d 1 ~ ~ 1
N W 1 M 1 ~ t C d 6 d 1 O 1
M W / W I ^ y
N V1 1 q 1 N C x P 1 1 t N v 1
M 1~ 1 to M O 1 1 1 O
Z ~ = N m~ 1 O d 1 .p Z ..r ~ ; 1 m O 1
_ _ 1 O
tl r.1 1 i tl y~ 1 M V 1 t ~ O N ~ 1 1 1 O~ 1
tl t~ 1 H Y 1 q 1 ~~ d 1. to 1 1 1 y 1
Y 6 1 V p _~ + ~~ 1 rt 1 O O C I 1 t v M 1
1 1
N M 1 W Y N O H 1 d I O V~ 1 1 1 O 1
__ 1 O C 1 O I[f ~ G 1
I O
tl ...a 1 N tl u7 N m 1 O O 1 O N P O ..y ~ O ~ O _ 1
1 m N
Y d 1 Y M N 1 w 1 w w •~ 1 w 1 w 1 1
Y o. 1 N 1 1 t ~.- M
tl i 1 ~ 1 1 1 I 1
~ ~ . . ~ ~ - 1
11 1 11 ~. I 1 1 1 1
N 1 M ~ t 1 1 1 1 1
/1 1 Y w d p C 1 1 1 t 1 O w 1
11 1 1/ O d y V O O ....1 / 1 as 1 1 1 O L ?. 1
11 1 Y L OC ....1 y .--. d C 1 t > 1 1 1 y v q 1
II I N ~•~ ~~ w ~~ v 0 1 1 O 1 1 1 ~~ 1
U 1 1 d ~~
Y .ti H N 1 1 1 1 t 1
11 1 •..v p N d 0 d y d d t / d 1 1 1 d d 1
N 1 Z N >- C N 1 1 1 V > 1
11 1 1--1 N V d V ~ V ~ 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 V ~+ q 0 1
~ V q a 1 1 V 1 1 1 q .r \\ 1
U 1 Z N q p q ~ q C O 1 1 q
11 1 O tl \ 1 Q\ 1. \ O O 1 1 \ w 1 1 1 \ q 0 1
tl 1 H II .N•1 7 N q ~ 1...1 M .ti •p 1 1 .O.1 d 1 1 1 O w ~ O 1
N 1 W p J ry Iy y 1 1 1 I ~ y IG.1 1
p 1 CC N N w 1 ~ 1 C M
~ ~ d 1 1 •- V 1 1 1
N 1 11 •~ 4 p d 1 1 q 1 1 1 d \ 1
11 1 N • ~ W y t ! C v- 1 1 • 1 1 1 f ~ • ~ 1
Y 1 u L ! Ilf O 1 1 1 1 / 6 1
11 1 n O p1 1() > 1/~ O N V d 1 O 1 0 0 1 1 1 O w 0 ! 1
tl 1 Y ~ i N= N s.,f ..y 1 <V I N~ 1 6 1 O 1 O d 0 O t
Y t M t0 Ip ~.y r- q 1 1 N 1 ~ 1 O / O m O V I
n 1 p I M
1 1 1 1 1 1
r - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
tl 1 1 - - -
p 1 --~--
U u ~ ; 1 ~ sn 1 ~
° = I
p Y 1 1 ~ ~ W 1 1
p 1 1 x 1
p N I O 1 V I 1 = 1 1
1 Z 1 t 1 1 1
N Y 1
tl H tl 1 O 1 W 1 Z i H 1 1
11 p 1 i 1 m ; ~ 1 GC 1 1
1 O 1
11 .~ M 1 u 1 1 d 1 d 1 ~
M i Y O 1 1 i 1 >r 1 = 1 1
tl O Y 1..) 1 R 1 ~ 1 i 1 W 1 O 1
1 1 1 x 1 S 1 V i
1 1
11 y N u 1 W 1 W 1 W 1 W 1
11 N 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 o I >•[ 1
4 1 i 1 i i
11 p = 1 > 1 Y ~ y 1 1 \V 1
1 } 1 DC
Y 11 W / 1~-1 1 ~ 1 ~- 1 H 1
11 11 2 1 1 1 _ 1 H 1
/ rr 1 i
11 p 1 t..s 1 U 1 U 1 V 1
1 1 1 W Y
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
r 1
r 1
r c 1
o ^ -+ o c 1
0 o r a+ 1
W W r ~ OI a..l q 1
S N Y d C O P 1
V ~ ^ +1 O~ q 1
N 7 Y O• v O• i
r m q .-+ w 1
W¢ r a Y d / OD
W r .--~ t !~ d 1 O\
W H ^ ~ W 1 .r
N ^ Y (~ q 1
W< r N~ ~ d 1
'- ~ r o ---1 w 1
^ P L D +-• 1
O r > > d q 1 6
^ < d Y~ ~ 1 <
- _ - ^ 1 -
^ w w 1 N
M `~ O 1 Y
M q i N d q N
r a ++ v 1 e ~ a+
N ^ N O 1 V --•~ N
W p Y1 L• L t LJ d O
W r +~ `~ L C 1 P ~ V
W • N O d d 1 C `~ O
r O ~ ~ 1 ••+ `~ V O•
¢ M V 3• Y 1 N q C
O r q P 1 -•~ L ~..1 .ti
W N O• d q 1 L b- N
p C ~ O C 1 c -.-1
N N O N q 1 d `~ N V
H N V •-• ~ 1 ~! O
N Y - N< 1 v O
< Y L L L 1 < N p ]
m n u 1 v
Y d N d ~ 1 .. ~- q
p ~~ E O 1 N ~-~ pL
Y O M •.ti 1 W < `~•
N <~ v T 1 ¢ i ~ O
N 1
1 p 1
i Y 1
t r i O 1
I Y v +-+ 1
1 u o v I
1 Y ~ C 1
1 OC Y O O 1
1 Y 1
1 S r O L O• 1
1 F- r w q C 1
1 o a V --+ 1
1 a m -.ti c 1
1 r ~ w- O 1
1 ^ l~f ---1 /V 1
1 Y •lf 1
1 p M 1
1 Y 1
1 r 1
1 n I
I < p 1
W p 1
1 d tl 1
T 1 O- p
F- i < M 1
1 Y 1
1 W Y 1
< 1 V p 1
V 1 Z p 1
O 1 6 Y 1
~ 1 p O 1
1 ¢ p •!f 1 Is'f
T i < tl f•') 1
m 1 7 Y M i w
1 11
O 1 -~~-
W 1 Y - - - 1
CO 1 p 1
¢ 1 1~-1 Y 1
< 1 M H 1
S 1 i N ~ 1
V 1 ¢ Y •-1 H H 1
1 W Y 1--1 1
N 1 d N 1
W I Y Y L-t a..l 1
W 1 W M L q q q 1
IL• 1 N p g U V U 1 <
1 ~ Y V 1 N
z 1 r ~. 1 m
0 1 r o o e 1
1 6 p O w V- V~ 1 O
H 1 p `~ 1 a.+
< 1 V r OI O m 1 ~.~
V 1 W p ~ O 00 YO 1
1 d p ^ N W to 1 ILf
1 N Y N 1
i Y ... ~.- .+ .~- 1 ~.-
O- 1 11 1
t 1
1 p I
I Y 1
I N 1
1 M 1 N
1 p `-- 1 M
I r d O 1
1 M 1 4 d
1 ^ V N 1 C
1 V p q d V 1 d ~
1 Z Y C c 1 O
1 N O V d q 1 V
1 i p N q ~~ 1 q
1 O Y M q p 1 d
1 N r O 1 N O
1 W Y • O L N 1
1 ¢ N N O 6 1 M e.
1 Y N `~- d 1
1 H O~ L V 1 W
1 r ~O d CO c 1
1 N ~ ~ '~ O 1 O V
1 Y O O 1'•> V 1 O q
1 Y Iff 1 •O
1 Y M M 1 M
1 p I
p 1
M 1
Y 1
N 1
Y 1
Y I
M 1
!• M 1
-- u 1
H Y 1
^ 1 O
< N 1 u
N O 1
o n V 1 0
.~ r / ¢
r z 1 O
11 O 1 W
M O 1
U ~ 1 <
tl O 1 H
N ~ 1 N
p 1
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR ITEM J-2
DEVELOPMENT, PLANNING ~ INSPECTION FEES
MEETING DATE: June 12, 1990
AGENDA ITEM: Survey of Development Related Fees;
Six Virginia Localities
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
BACKGROUND
At the May 22, 1990 Board meeting the Board asked for
information on review fees charged by other jurisdictions.
Attached is a summary of the Development related fees charged by
six other Virginia localities.
The Development Inspection staff surveyed these localities to
ascertain the level of fees charged, and the basis for these fees.
A number of the localities indicated that their fees were based on
recovering a percentage of their direct and indirect costs, however
most of the localities were not aware of the exact percentage.
The Development related fees proposed for Roanoke County are
based upon a policy of recovering 100% of the direct and indirect
cost associated with these activities. The proposed fees are:
Site Plan Review
Small Subdivision Review
' $685 + $40 per acre
Large Subdivision Review
Erosion/Sediment Control
Plan Review
Subdivision Waiver/Variance
Vacation of Subdivision Plat and
Easements
$25
$220 + $45 per lot or
parcel
$100 + $100 per acre
or portion thereof
$190
$190
SUBMITTED BY:
C~ ,`t 61 C`~ C'~.
Arnold Covey
Development
Director
Approved ( )
Denied t )
Received ( )
Referred
To
C'
and Inspections
Motion by:
ACTION
Eddy
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
Robers
VOTE
No Yes Abs
DEVELOPMENT FEES FOR THE FOLLOWING COUNTIES:
1 - Land Disturbing, Erosion Control Permit Fee
2 - Site Plan Review Fee
3 - Subdivision Review Fee
City of Salem
1 - $50.00 (maximum) or $10.00/acre
2 - No Fee
3 - $25.00 - Resubdivision
$50.00 - 1-5 lots Subdivision
$50.00 plus $10.00/lot - more than 5 lots
City of Roanoke
1 - $10.00 (flat fee)
2 - $50.00 /acre
3 - $50.00 plus $10.00/acre
Albemarle County
1 - $75.00 Application Fee
Up to 9 inspections free - after that $25.00/inspection
Only charge fee if not in compliance with approved plan.
2 - $520.00 Preliminary
$260.00 Administrative Approval Final Plan
$720.00 (Only if Planning Commission reviews final prior
to Preliminary approval)
$300.00 After Preliminary Approval
$30.00 Amendment
$130.00 Major Amendment
$65.00 Relief of Condition of Approval
3 - $65.00 Preliminary Plat - 3 lots or less
$260.00 plus $1.00/lot - 4 lots or more
$390.00 plus $1.00/lot - Final Plats for Commissioner
Approval
$30.00 Review Fee - Family or Administrative
$15.00 Exempt Plat
$65.00 Condominium Plat
$65.00 Waiver of Subdivision Ordinance
Chesterfield County
1 - $600.00 Program Administrative Fee
2 - $820.00 plus $45.00/acre - Commercial, Industrial,
Institutional Sites
$870.00 plus $10.00 dwelling/unit - Multifamily
Residential Sites
$520.00 - Master
$370.00 - Revised
3 - $345.00 plus $15.00/lot - New Tentative Approval
$370.00 plus $8.00/lot - Renewal Tentative Approval
$65.00 plus $7.00/lot - Final Approval
Henrico County
1 - No Fee but Escrow Account - Minimum $500.00
(Anything over 5,000 sq. ft.)
2 - $440.00 plus $20.00/actual acre - Plan of Development -
Commercial and Multifamily
3 - Conditional Approval - 1st - $170.00 plus $5.00/lot
2nd - $95.00 plus $5.00/lot - (different phases)
Loudon County
1 - $12.50/lot plus $86.00 - Subdivision
$37.50/acre plus $86.00 - Commercial
2 - Non-Residential Site Plan - Preliminary fee - (greater
than 4.9 acres or more)
$2,330.00 plus $100.00/acre for 1st 20 acres plus
$20.00/acre or fraction of acre for anything above 20
acres.
Final Site Plan - $3,100.00 plus $140.00/acre for 1st 20
acres plus $40.00/acre above 20 acres.
Preliminary/Final - (4.9 acres of less)
$3,000.00 plus $220.00/acre or fraction - 1st Step Review
3 - Non-Residential Subdivision - Preliminary - (5 or more
new lots)
$3,570.00 plus $120.00/lot for 1st 10 lots, plus $30.00
per lot
thereafter.
Record Plat - $3,,530.00 plus $280.00/lot for 1st 10 lots,
plus $30.00/lot thereafter.
Preliminary Record - (2 - 4 new lots) - $4,910.00 plus
$350.00/lot
Rural (Private Well & Septic) - Preliminary - (5 or more
new lots) $1,570.00 plus $120.00/lot for 1st 20 acres
plus $30.00/lot thereafter.
Record Plat - $1,450.00 plus $110.00/lot for 1st 20
acres, $30.00/lot thereafter.
$1,380.00 plus $$350.00/lot - (2 - 4 new lots)
Urban (served by public water and/or sewer) - Preliminary
Separated Record Option - $1,870.00 plus $120.00/lot for
1st 20 lots plus $30.00/lot thereafter.
Record Plat - $1,450.00 plus $110.00/lot for 1st 2G lots,
lus $30.00/lot thereafter.
Subdivision Waiver - (1 new lot) - $2,180.00
Family Subdivision - $1,730.00 plus $150.00 for each new
lot created.
°.
.,...
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER,
TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 1990
ORDINANCE 61290-7 ACCEPTING AN OFFER AND
AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF AN ELECTRICAL
SERVICE EASEMENT TO APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY
AT GREEN HILL PARK
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, as follows:
1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the
Charter of Roanoke County, the subject property has been declared
to be surplus and is being made available for other public uses,
i.e. electrical service easement; and
2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the
Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading concerning the
disposition of the subject property was held on May 22, 1990; a
second reading was held on June 12, 1990; and
3. That the new forty (40') foot easement for electric
service runs along Harbourwood Road, then follows a more direct
route across the subject property to the service area of the
proposed development, said easement being located on the property
owned by Roanoke County, known as Green Hill Park, and lying on the
westerly side of Virginia Secondary Highway 639 (Harbourwood Road)
in the Catawba Magisterial District; and
4. That the offer of Appalachian Power Company in the amount
of One Dollar ($1.00) is hereby accepted and all other offers are
rejected; and
5. That the proceeds from the sale of the easement are to
be allocated to the capital reserves of Roanoke County; and
6. That the County administrator is authorized to execute
such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County
as are necessary to accomplish the conveyance of said easement, all
of which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney.
On motion of Supervisor Robers, and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Robers
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens
A COPY TESTE:
maw ~
Mary H. A len, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
John Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator
Steve Carpenter, Director, Parks & Recreation
' .~ 1
ACTION NO.
ITEM NUMBER S- 3
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: June 12, 1990
AGENDA ITEM: Second reading of an ordinance to award an easement
to Appalachian Power Company at Green Hill Park
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
BACKGROUND•
In an effort to secure electrical service to the ball field
area at Green Hill Park, County staff has worked with staff from
Appalachian Power Company to determine appropriate easements and
coordinate the efforts so as to minimize the impact to the proposed
development of the park facility. In reviewing the current
easements across the property, Appalachian has agreed to abandon
its present easement across the area being developed for the
Equestrian facilities, and to utilize an easement along Harbourwood
Road, then following a more direct route across the park property
to the service area of the proposed concession stand and ball field
development. The attached map delineates the proposed easement and
shows the easement being released.
The County Attorney's office has prepared the attached
ordinance for the award of such easement. The first reading of
this ordinance was held on May 22 and staff encourages the adoption
by the Board of Supervisors.
RECOMMENDATION•
The Board is asked to approve the second reading of the
attached ordinance and to authorize the County Administrator to
execute the necessary documents.
Respectfully submitted, Approved by,
ohn M. Chambliss, Jr. Elmer C. Hodge
Assistant Administrator County Administrator
----------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs
Denied ( ) Eddy
Received ( ) Johnson
Referred ( ) McGraw
To ( ) Nickens
Robers
- . ' ~ ~ 3 780- 250 8 4 8, 274
• ~ - ~ '
P. L.TATE '
• -~ ~ PROPERTY
..' t
. - EX/ST/NG PCY£
2 74 -/2
_ _ 'GREEN HILL PARK
a
o
e
a
'. 8
o .X
0
b
i
•' c~
,~
i ~ ~A Q
rn ,~ 0~
~ ~0' ti~
. _ ~~ ~~0•
40'
" GEORGE K. GCO DE ,
! PROPERTY SEX/ST/NG PoLE
. ~ 20.S -/7/
j
~~~ ROANOKE COUNTY
V BOARD OF COUNTY
,~~+~ SU PERU I SOBS "
r'A PROPERTY
'~
" f RAYMOND L.
_ _ WADE
PROPERTY ..
NEW EASEMENT
EASEMENT TO BE RELEASED APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY
ROANOKE VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION T. b D. DEPARTMENT
PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
ON PROPERTY OF
ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF
1L1 SO R S
COUNTY OF ROANOKE~ VIRGINIA OHAWN BT L.M.A. GATE 3 _ 29 _g0
CATAWBA DIST. APP, er J.B.A.IIL SCALE I"= 400' '
1, D, 8 g 5000 SHEET I OF~,L~SHEETS
_ DRAWING N0. R - 27 29
DIlT20EN I]0~1A] CTD ~070FI]0011 Z.l6
~~
3
1
F?L.TATE
PROPERTY
- -src-~~
EX/S T/NG PCX-E
2 74 -/2
n
a
0
c
g
0
0
a
.~
.~
-~
c~
rn
w
~o
GEORGE K. GOODE ~ /
PROPERTY /
~~i
RAYMOND L. I
WADE
PROPERTY
®~i~ NEW EASEMENT
EASEMENT TO BE RELEASED
"GREEN HILL PARK'
1p A
2 ~0~
0~ 2
"~~ 1~~.
COUNTY OF ROANOKE~ VIRGINIA
CATAWBA DI ST.
T. D. 6 6 5000
~, N
N
O
EX/S T/NG F~L E
'2615 -/7/
ROANOKE COUNTY
BOARD OF GOU NTY-
SUPERV I SOBS
PROPERTY
DIETiGEN 190-M9 GtD 1090E/9o0H2-0tl
-'.
APPALACHIAN POWER COMPAN'
ROANOKE VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION T 8 D. DEPARTMI
PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
ON PROPERTY OF
ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY SORS
DRAWN BY L. M.A. DATE 3 -29 -90
APP. BY J.B.A.IIL SCALE I"= 400'
SHEET I OF~_SNEETS
DRAWING NO. R - 27 29
•.~ ~`
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER,
TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 1990
ORDINANCE ACCEPTING AN OFFER AND AUTHORIZING
THE CONVEYANCE OF AN ELECTRICAL SERVICE
EASEMENT TO APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY AT GREEN
HILL PARK
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, as follows:
1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the
Charter of Roanoke County, the subject property has been declared
to be surplus and is being made available for other public uses,
i.e. electrical service easement; and
2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the
Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading concerning the
disposition of the subject property was held on May 22, 1990; a
second reading was held on June 12, 1990; and
3. That the new forty (40') foot easement for electric
service runs along Harbourwood Road, then follows a more direct
route across the subject property to the service area of the
proposed development, said easement being located on the property
owned by Roanoke County, known as Green Hill Park, and lying on the
westerly side of Virginia Secondary Highway 639 (Harbourwood Road)
in the Catawba Magisterial District; and
4. That the offer of Appalachian Power Company in the amount
of One Dollar ($1.00) is hereby accepted and all other offers are
rejected; and
5. That the proceeds from the sale of the easement are to
be allocated to the capital reserves of Roanoke County; and
6. That the County Administrator is authorized to execute
such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County
as are necessary to accomplish the conveyance of said easement, all
of which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney.
r ~a
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 1990
ORDINANCE 61290-8 APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE
1990-91 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET FOR
ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, upon notice duly published in the newspaper, a public
hearing was held on April 23, 1990, concerning the adoption of the
annual budget for Roanoke County for fiscal year 1990-91; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia,
approved said budget on May 15, 1990, pursuant to the provisions
of Section 13.02 of the Roanoke County Charter and Chapter 4 of
Title 15.1 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this appropriation ordinance was
held on May 22, 1990, and the second reading of this ordinance was
held on June 12, 1990, pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04
of the Roanoke County Charter.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, as follows:
1. That the following appropriations are hereby made from the
respective funds for the period beginning July 1, 1990, and ending
June 30, 1991, for the functions and purposes indicated:
~~
COUNTY OF ROANOBB, VIRGINIA
PROPOSBD FISCAL YEAR 1990-91 BUDGBT
JUNB 12, 1990
RBVBNUBS:
X66,881,463
GBNBRAL FUND 7,264,622
DBBT FUND 372,155
CAPITAL FUND 331,319
YOUTH HAVEN II FUND 351,256
RECREATION FBB CLASS FUND 1,168,754
INTERNAL SERVICES FUND 8,466,T57
UTILITY FUND 88,193
OFFSITB FACILITY FUND-KATBR 195,101
OFFSITB FACILITY FUND-SBwBR 233,700
GARAGE II FUND _____________
85,353,320
SUB-TOTAL GBNBRAL COUNTY FUNDS
62,573,262
SCHOOL OPERATING FUND 2,724,000
SCHOOL CAFBTBRIA FUND 1,543,521
SCHOOL FEDERAL PROGRAMS FUND 736,838
SCHOOL TB%TBOOg FUND -
___-_
67,577,621
SUB-TOTAL SCHOOL FUNDS
X152,936,941
TOTAL RBVBNUBS ALL FUNDS _
~."
COUNTY OF ROANOgB, VIRGINIA
PROPOSBD FISCAL MBAR 1990-91 BUDGBT
JUNB 12, 1990
------------------------------------------
PBRSONNBL OPERATING CAPITAL TRANSFERS TOTAL
----------------------------------------
B%PBNDITURBS:
GBNBRAL FUND
BOARD OF SUPBRVISORS
;110,689
73,407
600
CO ADKINISTRATOR
920
142
15,616
ADKINISTRATION
INFORKATION k RBFBRAAL ,
41,617 63,458
flUKAN RBSOURCBS
726
115
80,972
ADKINISTRATION ,
072
209 30,820
COUNTY ATTORNEY ,
BCONOKIC DBVBLOPKBNT
337
156
22,284
1,500
ADKINISTRATION , 141,682
KARgBTING 296,284 125,664
TREASURER
COKMONNBALTfl ATTORNEY 313,373 17,424 776
VICTIKIAITNBSS 3,000
COKKISSIONBR OF TflB RBVBNUB 933
60 4,925
ADMINISTRATION ,
904
74
4,800
REAL BSTATE
PBRSONAL PROPERTY ,
191,311 44,875
BUSINBSS LICBNSB 100,769 8,970
CLBRg OF TBB CIRCUIT COURT 535
359 73,275
PUBLIC RECORDS ,
396
42
38,441
KICROFILK ,
SflBRIFF'S DBPARTMBNT 265
181 38,500
ADMINISTRATION ,
273
621
52,100
CIVIL DIVISION , 960
TRANSPORTATION SAFETY COKKISSION
CARB ~ CONFINEMENT OF PRISONERS 1,722,473 322,911 9,632
POLICE DBPARTKBNT
355
86
33,400
ADMINISTRATION
UNIFORM DIVISION ,
1,496,965 239,999 203,679
CRIKINAL INVESTIGATION 594,929
279
908 85,60?
105,259 5,950
9,717
SBRVICBS DIVISION , 000
160
B91I KAINTBNANCB DBPARTKBNT 600
6 ,
69,064 300
CIRCUIT COURT
GBNBRAL DISTRICT COURT ,
300 16,112 1,700
MAGISTRATE 1,210
9,581
2,340
FAMILY COURT 54,400 1,600
COURT SBRVICB UNIT
ASST COUNTY ADMIK-MGT SBRVICBS 67,098 7,325
GOUNTY ASSBSSOR
098
166
41,920
ADKINISTRATION ,
144
383 34,925 2,853
ABASSBSSMBNT ,
BOARD OF BAUILIZATION 10,765
FINANCIAL PLANNING
976
238
74,508
CBNTRAL ACCOUNTING ,
664
60 9,475
PAYROLL ,
(37,143
34,625
;184,696
158,536
105,075
256,698
202,749
180,121
141,682
456,573
331,573
3,000
65,858
79,704
236,186
109,739
432,810
80,837
219,765
673,373
960
2,055,016
119,755
1,940,643
686,486
1,023,255
160,000
75,964
18,772
1,210
11,921
56,000
14,423
208,018
420,922
10,165
313,484
70,139
~y
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
KANAGBKBNT AND BUDGBT
RISE KANAGBKBNT
PROCURBKBNT SBRVICBS
FIRB
ADKINISTRATION
OPBRATIONS
SUPPORT SBRVICBS
YOLUNTBBR FIRB
VOLUNTBBR RBSCUB
800KHZ COKKUNICATIONS
ASST CO ADKIN-COKKUNITY SVCS
GBNBRAL SBRVICBS
SOLID 41ASTB
ABFUSB COLLECTION
RBCYCLING
BNGINBBRING
BNGINBBRING
DRAFTING ~ RECORDS
CONSTRUCTION INSPBCTION
DRAINAGE
ROADWAY
STREET LIGHTING
BUILDING KAINTBNANCB
PLANNING A ZONING
ADKINISTRATION
ZONING ORDINANCE
PLANNING COKKISSION
DEVBLOPKBNT AND INSPBCTIONS
ADKINISTRATION
INSPBCTIONS
DBVBLOPKBNT RBVIBfi
ASST CO ADKIN-HUKAN SERVICES
GROUNDS KAINTBNANCB
GROUNDS KAINTBNANCB
LEAF COLLECTION
STRBBT SIGNS
PARgS AND RBCRBATION
COKKUNITY BDUCATION
LBISURB ACTIVITIBS
OUTDOOR ADVBNTURB
SENIOR CITIZENS
SPECIAL BVBNTS
THERAPEUTICS
ADULT ATHLETICS
YOUTH ATHLETICS
ADKINISTRATION
PUBLIC HEALTH
SOCIAL SBRVICBS ADKINISTRATION
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE
INSTITUTIONAL CARB
SOCIAL SERYICB ORGANIZATIONS
CONTRIBUTIONS SVC ORGANIZATIONS
. COUNTY OF ROANOgB, VIRGINIA
PROPOSED FISCAL MBAR 1990-91 BUDGET
JUNE 12, 1990
60,200 60,200
82,714 17,050 200 99,964
74,200 1,060,284 1,134,484
195,629 23,730 6,486 225,845
55,760
1,218,572
253,585
111,493
194,483
164,879 203,447 424,086
176,544 11,000 1,412,116
225,890 44,375 523,850
49,800 sa,aoo 109,800
106,869 5,000 111,869
3,000 3,000
18,500 (10,800 119,193
27,768 222,251
773,140 863,008 296,146
62,000
215,415 17,217 (9T,584~
99,921 10,264 11,000 (39,758
117,444 9,364 15,000 (57,730
82,640 139,244 15,000
40,200 7,700
123,441
293,919 525,528 20,275 (20,000
1,932,294
62,000
135,048
81,427
84,078
236,884
41,900
123,441
819,722
275,828 67,178 15,054 358,060
53,682 1,000 54,682
16,795 3,000 19,795
47,105 20,286 67,391
271,746 17,290 30,000 319,036
29,015 700 3,000 32,715
93,519 8,270 900 102,689
631,416 268,185 28,264 927,925
15,502 33,850 49,352
4,200 4,200
97,253 2,099 99,352
100,383 1,000 101,383
45,941 0 45,941
84,729 4,000 88,729
51,366 2,700 54,066
82,373 17,880 100,253
60,332 4,000 64,332
144,326 10,000 154,326
225,366 83,694 17,000 326,060
411,137 417,137
1,793,377 225,935 2,019,312
986,836 986;836
10,000 10,000
94,984 94,984
46,053 46,053
sy
COUNTY OF ROANOgB, VIRGINIA
PROPOSBD FISCAL YEAR 1990-91 BUDGET
JUNB 12, 1990
LIBRARY
ADMINISTRATION
135,752
810
RBSBARCH AND CIRCULATION 661,459 360,750 12,475
JOINT BOTBTOURT/RgB CNTY LIB 22,819 31,195 900
BgTBNSION S. CONTINUING BDUCATION 87,348 38,675
BLBCTIONS
REGISTRATION
96,943
20,873
BLBCTIONS 28,357 12,225
ANIMAL CONTROL 113,288 47,347 15,008
BMPLOYEB BBNBFITS 924,777
MISCBLLANBOUS 799,996
RBCOVBRY OF SCHOOL DEFICIT 500,000
ADDITION TO FUND BALANCB 132,220
TRANS TO DBBT-GENERAL
TRANS TO DBBT SBRVICB-SCHOOL
TRANS TO CAPITAL
TRANS TO SCHOOLS
TRANS TO SCHOOLS - DENTAL INSURANCB
TRANS TO GARAGB II
TRANS TO YOUTH HAVEN II
TRANS TO INTBRNAL SBRVICB
TRANS TO UTILITY CAPITAL 50
000
CONTINGENT BALANCB ,
1X TURNOVER (168,000)
SUB-TOTAL GBNBRAL FUND
DBBT SBRVICB FUND
GBNBRAL FUND OBLIGATIONS
SCHOOL FUND OBLIGATIONS
4,637,209
2,621,413
CAPITAL FUND
YOUTH HAVEN II FUND
RBCRBATION FBB CLASS FUND
COMMUNITY EDUCATION
LEISURE ACTIVITIES
OUTDOOR ADVBNTURB
SBNIOR CITIZBNS
SPECIAL BVBNTS
THBRAPBUTICS
ADULT ATHLBTICS
YOUTH ATHLBTICS
ADMINISTRATION
PARg CONSERVATION
372,155
259,906 70,413 1,000
136,562
1,034,684
54,914
126,023
117,816
40,582
175,643
924,777
799,996
500,000
132,220
3,737,420 3,737,420
1,646,575 1,646,575
322,155 322,155
30,594,950 30,594,950
128,280 128,280
100,000 100,000
50,000 50,000
656,097 656,097
40,OOa 40,000
5a,ooo
----(168,000)
X66,881,463
4,637,209
2,627,413
7,264,622
372,155
331,319
32,768 13,107 2,000 48,475
25,836 40,624 2,000 68,460
6,459 27,221 1,750 35,430
6,476 36,963 2,000 45,439
2,153 48,585 3,000 53,738
6,997 10,810 1,000 18,807
43,598 19,265 1,000 63,863
1,073 1,073
4,974 8,347 1,500 14,821
1,150- 1,150
351,256
~- `~
INTERNAL SBRVICBS FUND
BANAGEKENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS
ADMINISTRATION
OPBRATIONS
DEVBLOPMBNT
BND USER
COMMUNICATIONS
UTILITY FUND
UTILITY BILLING
COLLECTIONS
MBTBR RBADING
UTILITY
ADMINISTRATION
WATER OPERATIONS
WATER MAINTBNANCB
SBWBR OPERATIONS
SBWBR MAINTENANCB
SANITARY SBWBR EVALUATION
NON-DBPARTMBNTAL-WATER
NON-DBPARTMENTAL-SBWBR
OFFSITE FACILITIBS FUND-WATER
OFFSITB FACILITIBS FUND-SBWBR
GARAGE II FUND
SUB-TOTAL GENERAL COUNTY FUNDS
SCHOOL OPERATING FUND
SCHOOL CAFETERIA FUND
SCHOOL FEDERAL PROGRAMS FUND
SCHOOL TBgTB00B FUND
SUB-TOTAL SCHOOL FUNDS
TOTAL BtPBNDITURBS ALL FUNDS
COUNTY OF ROAN08B, VIRGINIA
PROPOSED FISCAL MBAR 1990-91 BUDGBT
JUNB 12, 1990
145,615 13,600
79,234 175,400
237,512 8,100
42,266 17,350
221,357 106,959
13,497 105,284
700
l,a5o
159,215
373,415
246,312
59,616
330,196
l,16a,754
103,992 98,741 5,000 207,733
53,334 9,027 2,000 64,361
190,467 46,575 2,880 239,922
397,590 1,514,849 36,000 1,948,439
214,044 312,850 100,360 627,254
95,958 1,081,349 1,177,307
241,293 162,508 84,800 48a,601
329,346 152,024 38,500 519,870
1,473,484 136,652 1,610,136
1,446,484 136,650 1,583,134
8,466,757
88,193 88,193
195,101 195,101
233,700 233,700
:85,353,320
662,573,262
2,724,000
1,543,521
136,838
667,577,621
6152,930,941
2. That the County Administrator may authorize the transfer
of any unencumbered balance or• portion thereof from one
classification of expenditure to another within the same department
or agency. That the County Administrator may transfer up to
$10,000 from the unencumbered balance of the appropriation of one
department or agency to another department or agency, including the
contingency account encompassed in the Non-Departmental
appropriation.
3. That all funded outstanding encumbrances, both operating
and capital, at June 30, 1990, are reappropriated to the 1990-91
fiscal year to the same department and account for which they are
encumbered in the previous year.
4. That appropriations designated for capital projects will
not lapse at the end of the fiscal year but shall remain
appropriated until the completion of the project or until the Board
of Supervisors, by appropriate action, changes or eliminates the
appropriation. Upon completion of a capital project, staff is
authorized to close out the project and transfer to the funding
source any remaining balances. This section applies to
appropriations for Capital Projects at June 30, 1990, and
appropriations in the 1990-91 budget.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson to approve ordinance, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw,~Johnson, Robers
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens
A COPY TESTE:
J`~'.
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
John Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator
Don Myers, Assistant County Administrator
John Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator
Reta Busher, Director, Management & Budget
Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance
Paul Mahoney, County Attorney
Keith Cook, Director, Human Resources
J-`I
AT A REGIILAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE
COIINTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COIINTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TIIESDAY, JIINE 12, 1990
ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE
1990-91 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET FOR
ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, upon notice duly published in the newspaper, a public
hearing was held on April 23, 1990, concerning the adoption of the
annual budget for Roanoke County for fiscal year 1990-91; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia,
approved said budget on May 15, 1990, pursuant to the provisions
of Section 13.02 of the Roanoke County Charter and Chapter 4 of
Title 15.1 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this appropriation ordinance was
held on May 22, 1990, and the second reading of this ordinance was
held on June 12, 1990, pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04
of the Roanoke County Charter.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, as follows:
1. That the following appropriations are hereby made from the
respective funds for the period beginning July 1, 1990, and ending
June 30, 1991, for the functions and purposes indicated:
T~
2. That the County Administrator may authorize the transfer
of any unencumbered balance or portion thereof from one
classification of expenditure to another within the same department
or agency. That the County Administrator may transfer up to
$10,000 from the unencumbered balance of the appropriation of one
department or agency to another department or agency, including the
contingency account encompassed in the Non-Departmental
appropriation.
3. That all funded outstanding encumbrances, both operating
and capital, at June 30, 1990, are reappropriated to the 1990-91
fiscal year to the same department and account for which they are
encumbered in the previous year.
4. That appropriations designated for capital projects will
not lapse at the end of the fiscal year but shall remain
appropriated until the completion of the project or until the Board
of Supervisors, by appropriate action, changes or eliminates the
appropriation. Upon completion of a capital project, staff is
authorized to close out the project and transfer to the funding
source any remaining balances. This section applies to
appropriations for Capital Projects at June 30, 1990, and
appropriations in the 1990-91 budget.
ACTION #
ITEM NUMBER '`~"`
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: June 12, 1990
AGENDA ITEM: Second Reading of the Fiscal Year 1990-91 Budget
Appropriation Ordinance
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
f ,~,~~..4~~.
BACKGROUND'
The 1990-91 fiscal year budget was presented to the Board of
Supervisors by the County Administrator on April 10, 1990. Budget
public hearings were held on January 23, 1990 and April 24, 1990
to receive written and oral comment from the public concerning the
proposed annual budget.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Attached for your approval is the 1990-91 Fiscal Year Budget
Appropriation Ordinance. The total County budget is $152,930,941.
This includes all interfund transfers. The budget net of interfund
transfers is $112,619,133.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The first reading of the
May 22, 1990. Staff recommends
Budget Appropriation Ordinance
1990.
~~ ~~
Reta R. Busher
Director of Management and
Budget
appropriation ordinance was held on
adoption of the 1990-91 Fiscal Year
after the second reading on June 12,
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
ACTION
Approved
Denied
Received
Ref erred
To
Motion by:
VOTE
No Yes Abs
Eddy
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
Robers
r
J-S
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER,
TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 1990
ORDINANCE 61290-9 TO INCREASE THE SALARIES OF
THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ROANORE COUNTY PURSUANT TO SECTION 3.07 OF THE
ROANORE COUNTY CHARTER AND SECTION 14.1-
46.01:1 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, Section 3.07 of the Charter of the County of Roanoke
provides for the compensation of members of the Board of
Supervisors and the procedure for increasing their salaries; and
WHEREAS, Section 14.1-46.01:1 of the Code of Virginia (1950),
as amended, establishes the annual salaries of members of boards
of supervisors within certain population brackets; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia,
has heretofore established the annual salaries of Board members to
be $8,805 by Ordinance 61489-13 and further, has established the
additional annual compensation for the chairman for the Board to
be $1,800 and for the vice-chairman of the Board to be $1,200; and
WHEREAS, this section provides that the maximum annual
salaries therein provided may be adjusted in any year by an
inflation factor not to exceed five (5%) percent; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing on the establishment of these
salaries was held on May 22, 1990; and
WHEREAS, the first reading on this ordinance was held on May
22, 1990; the second reading was held on June 12, 1990.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDAINED by the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that the annual salaries
of members of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia,
are hereby increased by an inflation factor of five (5%) percent
pursuant to the provisions of Section 3.07 of the Roanoke County
Charter and Section 14.1-46.01:1 of the Code of Virginia (1950),
as amended. The new annual salaries shall be $9,245 for members
of the Board. In addition, the chairman of the Board will receive
an additional annual sum of $1,800 and the vice chairman of the
Board will receive an additional sum of $1,200.
This ordinance shall take effect on July 1, 1990.
On motion of Supervisor McGraw to approve ordinance, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Robers
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens
A COPY TESTE:
/'-' `
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Board of Supervisors
Paul Mahoney, County Attorney
Reta Busher, Director, Management & Budget
Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance
D. Keith Cook, Director, Human Resources
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO.
°"" ,
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: June 12, 1990
AGENDA ITEM: ORDINANCE TO INCREASE THE SALARIES OF MEMBERS OF THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY PURSUANT TO
SECTION 3.07 OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CHARTER AND
SECTION 14.1-46.01:1 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
BACKGROUND•
Last year on June 13, 1989, the Board adopted an ordinance to
increase its salaries pursuant to the provisions of Section 14.1-
46.01:1 of the Code of Virginia. This section of the State Code
and Section 3.07 of the County Charter require that any increase
in supervisor's salaries be accomplished by ordinance after public
hearing between May 1 and June 30. Any increase is limited to an
annual five (5~) percent inflation factor
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The first reading and public hearing of this proposed
ordinance is scheduled for May 22, 1990; the second reading was
held on June 12, 1990.
The proposed salary for Board members will be increased from
$8,805 to $9,245. In addition, this ordinance establishes the
additional annual compensation for the Chairman of the Board at
$1,800 and for the Vice Chairman at $1,200.
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS: ~~
Five (5~) percent increase in Board salaries:
($440 each x 5 = $2,200)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
None.
Respectfully submitted,
~ `yV~~ ~~ ~~~-
~~
Paul M. Mahoney
County Attorney
Action
Approved ( )
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred
to
Motion by
Eddy
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
Robers
Vote
No Yes Abs
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER,
TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 1990
ORDINANCE TO INCREASE THE SALARIES OF THE
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY PURSUANT TO SECTION 3.07 OF THE ROANOKE
COUNTY CHARTER AND SECTION 14.1-46.01:1 OF THE
CODE OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, Section 3.07 of the Charter of the County of Roanoke
provides for the compensation of members of the Board of
Supervisors and the procedure for increasing their salaries; and
WHEREAS, Section 14.1-46.01:1 of the Code of Virginia (1950),
as amended, establishes the annual salaries of members of boards
of supervisors within certain population brackets; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia,
has heretofore established the annual salaries of Board members to
be $8,805 by Ordinance 61489-13 and further, has established the
additional annual compensation for the chairman for the Board to
be $1,800 and for the vice-chairman of the Board to be $1,200; and
WHEREAS, this section provides that the maximum annual
salaries therein provided may be adjusted in any year by an
inflation factor not to exceed five (50) percent; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing on the establishment of these
salaries was held on May 22, 1990; and
WHEREAS, the first reading on this ordinance was held on May
22, 1990; the second reading was held on June 12, 1990.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDAINED by the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that the annual salaries
of members of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia,
are hereby increased by an inflation factor of five (5~) percent
S S
pursuant to the provisions of Section 3.07 of the Roanoke County
Charter and Section 14.1-46.01:1 of the Code of Virginia (1950),
as amended. The new annual salaries shall be $9,245 for members
of the Board. In addition, the chairman of the Board will receive
an additional annual sum of $1,800 and the vice chairman of the
Board will receive an additional sum of $1,200.
This ordinance shall take effect on July 1, 1990.
ACTION NUMBER
ITEM NUMBER
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: June 12, 1990
SUBJECT: Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boards
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUNIMARY OF INFORMATION:
1 Board of Zoning Appeals
Five-year term of M. E. Maxey, Vinton Magisterial District will
expire June 30, 1990.
2 Community Corrections Resources Board
One-year term of Edmund J. Kielty, Alternate. His term expired
August 13, 1988.
One-year term of Bernard Hairston expired August 13, 1989.
3 Landfill Citizens Advisorv Committee
Carl L. Wright, representative from the Cave Spring Magisterial
District has resigned and another representative should be
appointed.
4 Parks and Recreation Advisorv Commission
Three-year terms of Linda Shiner, Cave Spring Magisterial
District and Roger Smith, At-large member, will expire June 30,
1990. Mr. Smith is filling the unexpired term of Michael
Lazzuri.
K~-y
SUBMITTED BY:
~~~~.
Mary H. Allen
Clerk to the Board
--------------------------ACTION
VOTE
Approved ( ) b No Yes Abs
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred ( )
To ( )
APPROVED BY:
~ ~ ~~
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
Motion y.
Eddy
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
Robers
1 r
_.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
ON TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 1990
RESOLUTION 61290-10 APPROVING AND
CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET
FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS
ITEM M - CONSENT AGENDA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. that the certain section of the agenda of the Board
of Supervisors for June 12, 1990 designated as Item M - Consent
Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each
item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 7, inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of Minutes - May 8, 1990, May 15, 1990,
May 22, 1990
2. Confirmation of Committee Appointments to the Fifth
Planning District Commission, Parks and Recreation
Advisory Commission, Transportation and Safety
Commission and Virginia Western Community College
Board.
3. Approval of Raffle Permit - Roanoke County AMVETS
Post 92.
4. Request for acceptance of Melissa Drive and Melissa
Circle into the VDOT Secondary System.
5. Request for acceptance of Countrywood Drive into
the VDOT Secondary System.
6. Donation of drainage easements through Lots 1 and
2, Section 14 along Penn Forest Boulevard, and Lots
37, 38, 39, and 40, Block 3 along Overhill Trail
and Lots 11 and 12, Block 3 on Verona Trail, all in
the Penn Forest Subdivision.
7. Donation of drainage easements through Tract III-
B-1, B-2, and the remaining North portion of Tract
III-B, and donation of a parcel of real estate for
street purposes, Southwest Industrial Park, Cave
Spring Magisterial District.
2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and
directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items
the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this
resolution.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson to approve the
resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Robers
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering
Arnold Covey, Director, Development & Inspections
Cliff Craig, Director, Utilities
~ ~ 1
May 8, 1990 `~ `~
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
Roanoke County Administration Center
3738 B~ambleton Avenue, SW
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
May 8, 1990
The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, met this day at the Roanoke County
Administration Center, this being the second Tuesday, and the
first regularly scheduled meeting of the month of May, 1990.
IN RE: CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Robers called the meeting to order at 3:07
p.m. The roll call was taken. .
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Richard Robers, Vice Chairman Steven
A. McGraw, Supervisors Lee B. Eddy, Bob L.
Johnson, Harry C. Nickens
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; John
M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator
May 8, 1990 3 3 5
Department of Historic Resources, Roanoke Regional Preservation
Office and Lin Melchionna, President of the Preservation
Foundation.
Supervisor Nickens moved to adopt the proclamation.
The motion carried by the following•recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers
NAYS: None
3. Recognition of Reta Busher, recipient of the
Government Finance Officers Association Budget Award
Director of Management and Budget Reta Busher was
present to be recognized for the award.
4. Recognition of 8. Lynn Rogers. Certification as
Senior Appraiser.
Lynn Rogers, Real Estate Assessments, was present to
receive recognition for his certification.
IN RE: NEA BOSINESS
1. Ao~roval of Industrial Development Authority
request for proposed financing for Optical Cable Corporation.
R-5890-1
Economic Development Director Tim Gubala presented the
staff report. He advised that Optical Cable Corporation and Alan
Lingerfelt have requested up to $6,500,000 in Industrial Revenue
Bonds to finance the acquisition, construction and equipment of a
May 8, 1990 3 3 7 ~~
feet ("Project") to be located on 6:5 acres at the end of
Research Road in Valleypointe Industrial Park in the County of
Roanoke, Virginia, and has held a public hearing thereon May 3,
1990; and
WHEREAS, Section 147 (f) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended, provides that the governmental unit having
jurisdiction over the issuer of private activity bonds and over
the area in which any facility financed with the proceeds of
private activity bonds is located must approve the issuance of
the bonds; and
WHEREAS, the Authority issues its bonds on behalf of
the County of Roanoke, Virginia ("County"); the Project is to be
located in the County and the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, ("Board") constitutes the highest elected
governmental unit of the County; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has recommended that the Board
approve the issuance of the Bonds; and
WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving
the issuance of the Bonds, subject to the terms to be agreed
upon, a certificate of the public hearing and a Fiscal Impact
Statement have been filed with the Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia:
1. The Board approves the issuance of the Bonds by
the Authority for the benefit of the Borrower, as required by
Section 147 (f) and Section 15.1-1378.1 of the Code of Virginia
May 8, 1990 3 3 9
staff has been working with Botetourt County to develop a fire
station in the Bonsack area. The fire station will be located at
the entrance to Botetourt County'a new industrial park on
Cloverdale Road. Chief Fuqua reported that a groundbreaking
ceremony is planned for mid-June with construction to be complete
by November 1990. Bids for construction will go out in
approximately two weeks. He advised that Botetourt County Board
of Supervisors are expected to approve the agreement on May 21.
Supervisor Johnson moved to authorize the County
Administrator to execute the agreement. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers
NAYS: None
3. Implementation of a Self-Insured Workers'
Compensation Program for the County Schools.
R-5890-3
Finance Director Diane Hyatt reported that the County
began a self-insured Workers' Compensation Program on July 1,
1986. At that time there was an increase in the manual premiums
for the insurance from $300,000 to $486,485 with claims
experience much less than the premiums being charged. It was
decided to establish the self-insurance program by contributing
$300,000 into a pool. The schools would like to establish a
similar program under the County's Risk Management Department and
would contribute $188,800 annually to established the reserve.
Ms. Hyatt advised that the resolution would outline the terms of
341
May 8, 1990
Management Services and a cooperative procurement agreement with
the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County to secure the services
of a third-party administrator to administer a self-insurance
worker's compensation program.
3. That the School Board shall expend $188,800 for
fiscal year 1990-91 or an amount not less than an amount required
to fund the "manual rated premium" for a worker's compensation
insurance program; said expenditure shall be made to the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia.
4. That the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, hereby agrees to administer this self-insurance
worker's compensation program on behalf of the School Board, that
it shall administer the funds in the account established for this
purpose, that this account shall be maintained separately from
other County accounts in an interest-bearing account entitled the
"Worker's Compensation Self-Insurance Fund for the County School
Board of Roanoke County, Virginia."
5. That the School Board shall commit itself to
exercise its best efforts through the budget process to expend
funds in future years in an amount not less than $188,800 and not
more than the amount calculated for the "manual rated premium,"
unless a severe depletion of the reserve occurs. Further, the
School Board commits itself to build a reserve fund in an amount
not less than $1 million in order to properly fund this self
insurance compensation program. If the annual payment is not
received, the County will not provide worker's compensation
343
May 8, 1990
A-5890-4
Engineering Director Phillip Henry reported that the
application for $500,000 of VDOT Revenue Sharing Funds was
approved by the Board of Supervisors on March 27, 1990 and the
county has now been notified it was allocated $442,800 and should
submit a project list. He asked for board approval of the
project list and appropriation of the local share of $347,300.
He advised that $95,000 will come from private groups.
In response to questions from Supervisor Eddy, County
Administrator Elmer Hodge stated he recommends going forward with
a commitment of funds from the private sector with the remaining
funds coming from a future bond issue, but could be advanced from
the General Fund. He advised that the state must approve the
projects that are being submitted by July 1.
Supervisor Nickens moved to approve the staff
recommendation. The motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers
NAYS: None
5. Authorization and appropriation to reimburse
Botetourt County for the Tinker Creek Interceptor Proiect.
A-5890-5
Utility Director Clifford Craig explained that he had
researched the records regarding this joint project with
Botetourt County from 1978 to 1983. Roanoke County administered
345
May 8, 1990
IN ACCORDANCE KITH ACTS OF A88EMBLY 1989,
CHAPTER ~8~
WHEREAS, it has been the practice of Roanoke County to
provide benefits equivalent to the State Police Officers
Retirement System for its law enforcement and full-time
firefighters; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of Roanoke County to
demonstrate its support for those employed in public safety; and
WHEREAS, House Bill No. 1477 was passed in the 1989
Session of the General Assembly of Virginia pertaining to
retirement benefits for local law enforcement officers and
firefighters; and
WHEREAS, this bill states that an employer may, by
resolution legally adopted and approved by the Virginia
Supplemental Retirement System Board, elect to provide benefits
equivalent to those provided for State Police Officers of the
Department of State Police for any such employees who are
employed in law enforcement positions comparably hazardous to
that of a State Police Officer, including any sworn law
enforcement officer who has the duty and obligation to enforce
the penal, traffic, and highway laws of this Commonwealth as
directed by his superior officer, if so certified by his
appointing authority, or in positions as full-time salaried
firefighters;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, that the Board hereby endorses provision of
May 8, 1990
that Roanoke County sell Botetourt County up to 250,000 gallons
of water per day.
Supervisor Eddy pointed out that the maximum volume
allowed in the current ordinance is 82,000 gallons per day and
the agreement provides for up to 250,000 gallons per day, and the
agreement is vague on charges beyond the current ordinance. He
advised he had offered an alternative in a memorandum to more
clearly define the charges. Mr. Craig advised he could make the
changes if the Board desires. Supervisor Eddy also questioned
charging fire stations for water usage. Mr. Hodge advised there
was an accountability for the water usage with the charges and
recommended that it stay the same.
Mr. Craig advised that water
from hydrants was not charged.
In response to a question 'from Supervisor Nickens, Mr.
Craig stated that the rates are looked at annually during the
budget process.
Supervisor Johnson moved to approve the agreement.
Supervisor Eddy offered a substitute motion that paragraph 5 of
the agreement regarding rates for the purchase of water be
changed per his memorandum. Supervisor Johnson accepted the
substitute as an editorial change to the motion. The motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers
NAYS: None
ZN RE: REQOEST FOR WORE SESSIONS
May 8, 1990 3 4 9
~ ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 1289-6 which
imposed certain limitations neon the location of certain tyyes of
signs.
There was no discussion on this ordinance.
Supervisor McGraw moved to approve first reading of the
ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers
NAYS: None
3. Ordinance accepting an offer of and authorizing
the execution of a lease of real estate, office space for the
Roanoke County Office of the Virginia Cooperative Extension
Service.
Supervisor Eddy requested that the staff continue to
look for less expensive space for this operation.
Supervisor McGraw moved to approve first reading. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers
NAYS: None
IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
i. Ordinance accepting an offer and authorising the
conveyance of a storm sewer easement to the Town of Vinton.
0-5890-8
There was no discussion of this ordinance.
May 8, 1990 3 5
6. That the County Administrator is authorized to
execute such documents ~d take such actions on behalf of Roanoke
County as are necessary 'to accomplish the conveyance of said
easement, all of which s3~a11 be upon form approved by the County
Attorney.
On motion of S~ipervisor Nickens, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eds.dy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers
NAYS: None
IN RE: APPOINTI~iENTB
1. League of Older Americans
Supervisor McCraw nominated Murry K. White to a one-
year term that will exp ire March 31, 1991.
2. TAP Board of Directors
Supervisor Eddy nominated Elizabeth Stokes, County
appointee and E. Cabell Brand, joint appointee with the City of
Salem, to another two-ye:ar term expiring May 8, 1992.
IN RE: REPORTB AND IN~QIIIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
SOPERVISOR EDGY: (1) Announced that the Hidden Valley
Junior High School Odyssey of the Mind won the state competition
and have been invited tc the world competition. Requested a
resolution of congratulations be presented to the students and
their advisors at the next meeting. (2) Expressed concern about a
May 8, 1990 ~ 5
IN RE: CONBENT AGENDA
Supervisor Nickens moved to approve the Consent Agenda.
The motioh carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers
NAYS: None
RE80LUTION APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN
CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED
AS ITEM 1C - CONSENT AGENDA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows:
1. that the certain section of the agenda of the
Board of Supervisors for May 8, 199q designated as Item J -
Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to
each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 5, inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of Minutes - April 10, 1990
2. Acceptance of Water and Sanitary Sewer
facilities serving Tanglewood Executive Park.
3. Acceptance of Water and Sanitary Sewer
facilities serving Hunting Hills, Section 20.
4. Acceptance of Sanitary Sewer Facilities
serving The Orchards, Section 3, Applewood
Subdivision.
5. Acknowledgement of receipt of Senate Jpint
Resolution No. 14
2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby
authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon
May 8 1990 35 5
2. General Fund Unappropriated Balance
3. Board Contingency Fund
4. Income Analysis and Statement of Expenditures
for the nine months ended March 31, 1990.
5. Report on the Green Hill Park Dedication
ZN RE: BODGET WORK BESSION
County Administrator Elmer Hodge reviewed the remaining
steps necessary to adopt the budget. He announced a meeting had
been set up on Thursday, May 10, 1990 to discuss healthcare
insurance. He will bring back a staff recommendation following
the meeting. Chairman Robers pointed out only one bid was
received and the County could save $98,000 with Community Care
Network and Blue Cross Blue Shield. He asked Supervisor Eddy to
attend the meeting.
Supervisor Johnson stated that he was concerned about
funneling employees to one particular hospital for their
healthcare needs. Supervisor Robers responded that he felt there
was a misunderstanding of how CCN operates and what it provides.
Supervisor Johnson asked that the plan be clearly defined with
input from employees.
Mr. Hodge presented a list of unresolved issues
equalling $179,510 and advised there was $56,215 remaining
revenue to fund those items the board desires. He also presented
a list of the employee positions that were recommended for salary
increases based on the market survey. A salary survey comparison
--~
35 7
May 15, 190
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
Roanoke County Administration Center
3738 Brambleton Avenue, SW
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
May 15, 1990
The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, met this day at the Roanoke County
Administration Center, this being an adjourned meeting continued
from the regular meeting on the 8th day of May, 1990.
IN RE: CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Robers called the meeting to order at 3:10
p.m. The roll call was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Richard Robers, Vice Chairman Steven
A. McGraw, Supervisors Lee B. Eddy, Bob L.
Johnson, Harry C. Nickens
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
IN RE: COQNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS
County Administrator Elmer Hodge presented opening
35 g
May 15, 1990
IN RE: REVIEII OF BIIDGET CHANGES TO DATE
Mr. Hodge reviewed the budget document presented to the
Board. The following issues were discussed.
1. User Fees
Mr. Hodge advised that changes have been made to the
user fees in Senior activities and the Therapeutics Pogram as the
Board requested. Supervisor Johnson advised he would like a
policy established that no citizens would be excluded from a
recreational program because of inability to pay the fees.
Supervisor Nickens reported that he continues to request funding
from Roanoke City for their share of the Therapeutics Program and
there has not been a response to date. In response to a question
from Supervisor Johnson, Assistant County Administrator John
Chambliss advised that programs are dropped based on minimum
interest and they will continue to study individual programs.
2 School Board Budget:
Mr. Hodge reviewed the final figures on the school
board budget. In response to a question from Supervisor Robers,
Budget Director Reta Busher advised that the school budget is 46$
of the total local budget and 58$ of all new revenues.
3 Maior Funded Items
Mr. Hodge reviewed the major items funded in the
proposed budget totalling $2,840,732. The following specific
categories were discussed.
Market Survey: Mr. Hodge reported on the results of
the market survey, explaining that some employees were two steps
May 15, 1990 ~ 6
social services and he felt they should receive the same salary
increases as other county employees. He also asked that these
employees be included in future market surveys. Supervisor Eddy
also suggested that other localities be surveyed to see if they
provide local funding.
Public Safety: Mr. Hodge advised he would like to
include the funding for five police officers. Following
discussion, it was board consensus to delete these positions and
allocate the money to the fund balance. The new Police Chief may
then determine his needs. In response to a question from
Supervisor Eddy, Mr. Hodge advised that the paid firefighter
position is earmarked for the Bent Mountain fire station because
that station has the worst response time.
Other Funded Items: Supervisor Eddy expressed concern
about the funding for part-time employees to update the zoning
ordinance. Planning Director Terry Harrington explained that
this will fund two full-time temporary people to allow the full-
time staff to work on the zoning ordinance and comprehensive
plan.
Supervisor Eddy advised that he would like a vote on
whether the Sheriff should keep his supplement. He felt there
was a commitment not to reduce the Sheriff's salary. Supervisor
Nickens responded that this supplement is specifically tied to
law enforcement responsibilities. With the Sheriff's reduced
responsibilities, he felt that the supplement should not continue
after the police department was established. Mr. Hodge reported
May 15, 1990 ~ 6 `~
the funding of the positions of Economic Development Special at
$35,430 and the Zoning Enforcement Officer at $42,283.
Supervisor Eddy advised he would like to increase the
unappropriated fund balance.
IN RE: ADOPTION OF HEALTH CARE PACKAGE
A-51590-1
Supervisor Robers moved to adopt the healthcare plan of
Blue Cross/Blue Shield, amended by Supervisor Nickens that the
staff recommendation delete the policy goal for county and school
contributions to be funded at 90$ of the single employee rate
within the next three years. Supervisors Johnson and McGraw
advised that they would support the resolution but also supported
the 90$ county premium policy goal. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers
NAYS: None
IN RE: ADOPTION OF COQNTY AND SCHOOL BQDGETS FOR FY 1990-91
A-51590-2
County Attorney Paul Mahoney recommended adoption of
the budget on May 22 because this was only a work session.
However, he stated there was no legal reason not to take action
at this time. Supervisor Johnson moved to adopt the budget
as amended during the work session with $37,142 added to the
Unappropriated Balance. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
May 22, 1990 ? C
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
Roanoke County Administration Center
3738 Brambleton Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
May 22, 1990
The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, met this day at the Roanoke County Administration Center,
this being the second Tuesday, and the second regularly scheduled
meeting of the month of May, 1990.
IN RE: CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Robers called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m.
The roll call was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Richard W. Robers, Vice Chairman Steven
A. McGraw, Supervisors Lee B. Eddy, Bob L.
Johnson, Harry C. Nickens
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; John M.
Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator for
Human Services; 0. Arnold Covey, Director,
Development & Inspections; Don M. Myers,
Assistant County Administrator for Management
Services; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; Mary
H. Allen, Clerk; Anne Marie Green, Information
Officer; Brenda J. Holton, Deputy Clerk ; Paul M.
Mahoney, County Attorney
May 22, 1990
36
s y, c raw, o nson, is ens, o ers
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 52290-1 OF CONGRATULATIONS TO THE HIDDEN VA LLE Y
JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ODYSSEY OF THE MIND TEAM UPON W I N N I N G
FIRST PLACE IN STATE COMPETITION
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County School System has always shown a
commitment to training and expanding the minds of its students; and
WHEREAS, as an example of this commitment, the Odyssey of
the Mind teams allow students an opportunity to compete in an effort
to solve hypothetical problems; and
WHEREAS, the Hidden Valley Junior High School Odyssey of the
Mind Team consisted of David Allen, Peter Nevin, Andy Newton, Kris
Wiseley, Robert Herchenrider, and Ann Schleupner, sponsor Bob
Keniston, and coaches Mrs. Lynn Schleupner and Mrs. Diane
Herchenrider; and
WHEREAS, the Hidden Valley Junior High School Odyssey of the
Mind Team recently participated in the statewide competition in
Williamsburg, and won first place.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Roanoke County
Board of Supervisors, on behalf of itself and the citizens of the
County, does hereby extend its congratulations to the Hidden Valley
Junior High School Odyssey of the Mind Team; and
FIIRTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors does
hereby extend its best wishes for good luck to the Team when they
journey to Iowa to compete in the World Competition.
On motion of Supervisor Eddy to approve the resolution and
May 22, 1990 ~ 6 9
WHEREAS, over 6,000 participants, family members, and
friends will come from 11 states to spend a weekend in the Roanoke
Valley to enjoy excellent soccer, the Festival events, and the other
opportunities and facilities of our community.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County that we express our sincere appreciation to the
officers, members, and volunteers of the Roanoke Valley Youth Soccer
Club, Inc. for their tireless efforts in organizing and holding the
FIFTH ANNOAL FESTIVAL SOCCER TOIIRNAMENT and wish to each participant a
warm welcome to the Roanoke Valley and much success in their athletic
endeavors.
On motion of Supervisor Nickens to approve resolution, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers
NAYS: None
IN RE: NEW BIISINESS
1. Request for approval to construct a support facility at
the Regional Fire and Rescue Training Center.
A-52290-3
Battalion Chief Mark Light advised that the next phase of
the Regional Fire and Rescue Training Center is the construction of a
support facility. He presented diagrams of the proposed facility
consisting of four classrooms, conference room, bath and shower
May 22, 1990 3
Fund of a GE Foundation Elfun Grant and JTPA Summer
Youth Program grant.
A-52290-~
Reta Busher, Director, Management & Budget, advised that the
Roanoke County School System has recently received two grants. One in
the amount of $21•,000 from the GE Foundation, Elfun Educational
Challenge from the Shenandoah Chapter to involve students in grades K-
12 in a human relations curriculum. The second is in the amount of
$80,000 from the Fifth District Planning Employment and Training
Consortium's Private Industry Council and Policy Board for a Job
Training Partnership Act (JTPA) Summer Youth Program.
Dr. Eddie Kolb, Director, Pupil Personnel Services and
Special Education, and Garland Kidd, Director, Vocational and Adult
Education, were present to answer questions.
In response to a question from Dr. Nickens regarding the
Elfun grant, Dr. Kolb explained that the grant was to develop a
curriculum for a behavior adjustment program, to employ teachers and
purchase materials.
Supervisor Nickens moved to approve the appropriation of
both grants. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers
NAYS: None
3. Request to Virginia Department of Transportation for
Industrial Access funding for Optical Cable.
May 22, 1990
373
ROAD FIINDING FROM THE COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION
BOARD (VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRAN8PORTATZON) FOR
OPTICAL CABLE CORPORATION FACILITIES IN
VALLEYPOINTE.
WHEREAS, the Optical Cable Corporation has purchased property
located in the County of Roanoke and has entered into firm contract to
construct its facilities on that property for the purpose of producing
fiber optic cable; and
WHEREAS, this new facility is expected to involve a new private
capital investment in land, building, and manufacturing equipment of
approximately $6,500,000 and the Optical Cable Corporation is expected
to employ 185 persons at this facility; and
WHEREAS, manufacturing operations are expected to begin at this
new facility on or about August 1, 1990; and
NHEREAB, the property on which this facility will be located has
no access to a public street or highway and requires the construction
of a new roadway which would connect to Peters Creek Road (Route 117);
and
WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke hereby guarantees that the
necessary right of way for this new roadway and utility relocations or
adjustments, if necessary, will be provided at no cost to the Virginia
Department of Transportation;
WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke hereby guarantees that the
necessary right of way for this improvement, and utility relocations
or adjustments, if necessary, will be provided at no cost to the
Industrial Access Fund;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The Roanoke County Board of
May 22, 1990 3 7 5
COMPONENT OF THE ROANORE COIINTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia
has expressed an interest in identifying areas and historic properties
worthy of local historic resource protection; and,
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Historic Resources has
announced that certain grant funds are available to localities on a
competitive, matching share basis; and,
WHEREAS, a portion of these funds are designated solely for tha
purpose of conducting local historic surveys or planning activities;
and,
WHEREAS, the Board has authorized, as part of the adopted FY 9C-
91 budget, the expenditure of up to $20,000 in cash and in-king
services to be used as a dollar for dollar matching share for an•:
grant funds offered by the Department of Historic Resources for the
purpose of identifying Roanoke County areas and historic properties
worthy of local historic resource protection; and,
WHEREAS, the Board desires to use the information and data
obtained from a local historic survey as a basis for future efforts tc
protect any historically significant areas or properties identified.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, that the Board supports the efforts of the Virginia
Department of Historic Resources to assist localities with their
historic preservation efforts; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board will use the informati~^
obtained from the Roanoke County survey of historical areas anc
properties as a basis for a preservation component of the Roanoke
May 22, 1990
37 6A
There was no discussion of this item.
Supervisor McGraw moved to approve the first reading and set
second reading for June 12, 1990. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers
NAYS: None
2. Ordinance appropriating the fiscal year 1990-91 budget.
There was no discussion of this item.
Supervisor Johnson moved to approve the first reading and
set second reading for June 12, 1990. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers
NAYS: None
3. Ordinance Imposing or increasing user fees for the
Parks and Recreation Department.
Reta Busher presented the staff report. She advised that
staff recommends phasing in over several years the inclusion of total
indirect costs in the cost recovery calculations in the ordinance.
Richard Cox. 5714 Capito Street, President of the North
Roanoke Recreation Club expressed concern about the impact of fees on
youth activities.
May 22, 1990 r1
for suggestions.
Supervisor Robers questioned whether the costly programs
with small participation were eliminated. John Chambliss explainer
that each program is evaluated on its own merits and level o~
participation. During 1989-90, there were 800 different programs
offered but only 600 programs were actually held based c::
participation.
It was the consensus of the board that the staff should mee~
with all interested groups for their input and discussions prior t~
the second reading of the ordinance. The board emphasized than
although they feel the need to recover costs for the programs, their
intent is that no children are to be excluded from any recreations:
program because of financial hardship.
Supervisor Nickens moved to approve the first reading any
set the second reading for June 12, 1990, with Paul Mahoney to modif
the ordinance if necessary. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
IN RE:
Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers
None
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE8
1. Ordinance to amend Article II of Chapter 5, "Animals
and Fowl" of the Roanoke County Code.
0-52290-7
There was no discussion of this ordinance.
May 22, 1990
38 0
--- - - '' --~ -- -~~:a:.... fir. ~}~n
normal board fee of five dollars (S5 00) per day when anv doct is
claimed by its owner or custodian.
Sec. 5-34. Penalties.
L1 The enalties for violation of Section 5-26 shall be as
follows•
u A fine of not less than one hundred dollars (5100.001
nor more than five hundred dollars (5500.00).
j21 The iudcre tryinq the case may order the owner or
custodian to remove such dog from the county within twenty-four (24)
hours of entry of such order or within twenty-four (24) hours after
the rabies observation period has expired, if applicablet or both.
j~ The enalties for violations of all other sections of this
chapter shall be as follows:
.~1 For the first offense a fine of not less than ten
dollars (S10 00) nor more than twenty dollars ($20.00).
For a second offense within a consecutive twelve month
S12) period a fine of not less than twenty dollars (520.00) nor more
than fifty dollars (550.00).
,~,~ For a third offense within a consecutive twelve month
X12) period a fine of not less than fifty dollars (550.00) nor more
than five hundred dollars (5500.00).
,~j4 The iudcte tryinct case may order anv animal permanently
removed from the county within twenty-four (24) hours of such order.
May 22, 1990 3 8 2
0-52290-8
There was no discussion of this ordinance.
Supervisor Nickens moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers
NAYS: None
ORDINANCE 52290-8 REPEALING ORDINANCE 12489-6 WHZCH IMPOSED
CERTAIN LIMITATIONS QPON THE LOCATION OF CERTAIN TYPES OF
SIGNS
WHEREAS, on January 24, 1989, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, adopted Ordinance 12489-6, said ordinance provided
for a limitation or prohibition upon the location of certain types of
signs; and
WHEREAS, on April 24, 1990, the Board adopted Ordinance 42490-11
which provided for new zoning regulations pertaining to the display of
signage and repealed or amended certain existing zoning regulations
pertaining to the display of signs; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance 42490-11 supersedes and replaces Ordinance
12489-6 in its purpose and effect, and it is therefore just and
appropriate to repeal same; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 8,
1990, and the second reading of this ordinance was held on May 22,
1990.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
May 22, 1990 3 8 4
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ,
May 22, 1990 3 8 6
. upervlsors y, McGraw, Johnson, _Nickens, Robers
NAYS: None
~ Ordinance acce~tinq an offer of and authorizing the -
execution of a lease of real estate. office space for
the Roanoke County Office of the Virginia Cooperative
Extension Service.
0-52290-9
John Chambliss presented the staff report.
Supervisor Johnson requested that the staff make an in-
house study of all space leased by the county, including utilities
costs, lease increase, insurance and need for additional space.
Supervisor Nickens moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers
NAYS: None
ORDINANCE 52290-9 ACCEPTING T8E OFFER OF AND AOTHORIZING
THE EBECIITION OF A LEASE OF REAL ESTATE, OFFICE
SPACE FOR THE ROANORE COONTY OFFICE OF THE
VIRGINIA COOPERATIVE EBTENSION SERVICE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
Virginia as follows:
1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the
Charter of Roanoke County, the acquisition of any interest in real
May 22, 1990
On motion of Supervisor Nickens to approve ordinance, and carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers
NAYS: None
IN RE: REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING FOR REZONING
ORDINANCE - CONSENT AGENDA
Supervisor Johnson moved to approve the first reading and
set second reading and public hearing for June 26, 1990. The motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers
NAYS: None
1. Ordinance to rezone 3.49 acres from M-1 to M-2 to be
developed into five industrial sites located on Starkey
Road off Terminal Road in the Cave Spring Magisterial
District upon the rectuest of Frank W. Martin.
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQIIIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Eddy: (1) Asked Supervisor McGraw to report in
detail regarding newspaper article on consolidation negotiations. (2)
Asked for board consideration for a study of county operations by
employees from other localities. He asked Mr. Hodge to study the
May 22, 1990 ~ ~ 0
Supervisor Robers: (1) Congratulated Mr. Hodge on the process
used to select the police chief and announced that thank you letters
will be sent to those who participated.
Supervisor Nickens: (1) Asked that staff investigate an
appropriate memorial to honor the late Darrell Shell, who was the
creator of the Parks and Recreation Department. (2) Asked Pau=
Mahoney to bring back a policy or proposed ordinance setting standards
for recycling of water usage in car washes and requirements for
underground gasoline storage tanks.
IN RE: RECONSIDERATION OF REZONING REQUEST FROM AEROSPACE RESEARCH
CORPORATION
Supervisor Nickens moved that Aerospace Research
Corporation's request to rezone 51.62 acres which was tabled at the
April 24, 1990 meeting be removed from the table for reconsideration.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers
NAYS: Supervisor Eddy
IN RE: REQUEST FROM AEROSPACE RESEARCH CORPORATION TO REZONE 51.62
ACRES FROM M-2 TO R-1
0-52290-11
May 22, 1990
392
Virginia, as follows:
That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real
1.
ontaining 51.62 acres, as described herein, and located off
estate c
Number 90.00-3-12) in the Vinton
Route 939 (Aerospace Road), (Tax Map
'al District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification
Magisteri
eneral Industrial District, to the zoning classification of
of M-2, ~
R-1, Single Family Residential District.
2. That this action is taken upon the application of Aerospace
Research Corporation.
roffered in writing the
3. That the owner has voluntarily p
acce ts:
following conditions which the Board of Supervisors hereby P
a. All lots in the proposed subdivision shall contain a
minimum land area of one acre.
b, A minimum 50 foot buffer yard will be maintained
between the M-2 and R-1 properties. The existing trees
on the land will remain to implement the buffering.
4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows:
Beginning at Point A in Back Creek at the west3rOn
most point of the property, thence S . 56 deE ' 7 , 38
E. 31 poles to point 44; thence S. 77 deg.
poles to a point on the Aerospace Road right-of-
way; thence following Aerospace Road right-of-way
oint 43; thence N. 30 deg. E. 18.14
30.1 poles to p 30' E. 40.92
poles to point 42; thence N. 72 deg.
oint 42A; thence N. 29 deg. 45' W. 96.9
poles to p 2• thence S.
poles to a point in the creek at 25 1/
W, 42.39 poles to a point in the creek at
89 deg. , oles to a
26; thence S. 20 deg. 15 W. 22'42 P 15' W•
point in the creek oint2in then creek atd28; thence
52.54 poles to ~ P to point A the beginning.
S, 7 deg. 11 W• more or less.
Comprising a total of 51.62 acres,
5. That the effective date of this ordinance shall be May 22,
394
May 22, 1990
Supervisor McGraw suggested that the Board set a special
meeting on Tuesday, May 29, 1990, to consider the changes to the
roposed agreement. It was board consensus to adjourn from this
P
meeting to 5:00 p.m. on May 29, 1990, to consider the changes to the
consolidation plan.
IN RE: APPOINTMENTS
1. Fifth Plannin District Commission
Supervisor Nickens nominated Lee B. Eddy to another
three-year term which will expire June 30, 1993.
2. Parks and Recreation Adviso Commission
Supervisor Eddy appointed William J. Skelton, Jr. to
another three-year term which will expire June 30, 1993.
3. Transportation and Safety Commission
Supervisor Eddy nominated Lt. Delton R. Jessup to
another four-year term representing the State Police. His term will
expire April 1, 1994.
4. Virginia Western Community College Board
Supervisor Nickens nominated Monty Plymale to another
four-year term which will expire June 30, 1994.
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
R-52290-12
May 22, 1990 3 9 6
to the County of Roanoke for road wiaening
purposes along Route 943, Cave Spring Magisterial
District.
2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized
and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said
items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to
this resolution.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson to approve Consent
Resolution with "B" of Item L-7 deleted, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 52290-12.b URGING THAT THE CONGRESS ENACT
LEGISLATION TO RESTORE TO MUNICIPALITIES SIGNIFICANT
CONTROL OVER THE REGULATION OF RATES AND OPERATION OF
LOCAL CABLE TELEVISION SYSTEMS
WHEREAS, municipal regulation of cable television is
essential in order to regulate the use of valuable and limited
public right-of-way, to protect consumers' interests, to foster
public educational and governmental use of cable television
systems, and to provide for the protection of community cable
related needs and interests; and
WHEREAS, although the Cable Communications and Policy
Act of 1984 was intended to increase competition and lower cable
rates, the impact of this legislation has been to impose major
restrictions on local regulation and localities' ability to
control increasing cable rates; and
May 22, 1990 ~ v
combine with the City of Roanoke, Town of Vinton, Botetourt
County, and City of Salem in a mutually agreed upon and
cooperative program, contingent on approval of the application by
the Department of Waste Management, Division of Litter Control
and Recycling, and contingent on receipt of such funds for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1991; and
2. That the Board hereby authorizes Clean Valley
Council, Inc., to plan and budget for a cooperative anti-litter
program for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1991, which shall
represent said program for all localities named in this
resolution; and
3. That the Board further authorizes Clean Valley
Council, Inc., to apply on behalf of Roanoke County for a grant,
and to be responsible for the administration, implementation, and
completion of the program; and
4. That the Board further accepts responsibility
jointly with the Clean Valley Council, Inc., and the City of
Roanoke, Town of Vinton, Botetourt County, and City of Salem for
all phases of the program; and
5. That said funds when received will be transferred
immediately to Clean Valley Council, Inc.; all funds will be used
in the cooperative program to which the Board gives its
endorsement and support; and
6. That the financial records of Clean Valley
Council, Inc., shall be subject to inspection and review by the
Assistant County Administrator of Management Services and such
May 22, 1990 4 O Q
IN RE: RECESS
Chairman Robers declared a dinner recess at 5:20 p.m.
EVENING 8ESSION (7:00 P.K.)
IN RE: RECONVENEMENT
At 7:00 p.m., Chairman Robers reconvened the meeting
for the evening session.
IN RE: PIIBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
590-1 Ordinance imposing or increasing certain fees
for services for Development and Inspections
Planning and Zoning and repealing prior
actions concerning same
County Attorney Paul Mahoney advised that the fee for
vacation of subdivision plat and easement of $190 should be
amended to $150 in the proposed ordinance to conform with State
Code requirements.
Supervisor Eddy questioned as to how these fees
compared around the state and asked that staff compare proposed
fees with other localities. There was a general discussion about
the comparison of fees in other localities with Reta Busher,
Arnold Covey, Director, Development & Inspections, and Terry
May 22, 1990 ~ 0 Z
IN RB: POBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
590-3 An ordinance to amend the Future Land Use Mao
designation of a 53.44 acre tract from
Development to Principal Industrial and to
rezone said property from R-E to M-1 for
industrial development. located east of West
Ruritan Road and north of Homestead Lane.
Hollins Magisterial District upon the request
of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
(CONTINUED FROM MARCH 27, 1990. PETITIONER
WILL REQUEST THAT THIS REZONING B8 TABLED.)
Supervisor Johnson moved to table this rezoning to
allow Fralin and Waldron to work with the City of Roanoke
regarding the access road. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers
NAYS: None
IN RE: CITIZENB~ COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
1. Jim Woltz. Route 2. Cooper Hill, Virginia
expressed his concern about the impact of fees for site review
for large acreage in rural area. Mr. Covey responded that there
may be a misunderstanding of the fee and he will meet with Mr.
a
ACTION NO. A-61290-10.a
• ITEM NUMBER ~ - •~..
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: May 22, 1990
AGENDA ITEM: Confirmation of Committee Appointments to the
Fifth Planning District Commission, Parks and
Recreation Advisory Commission, Transportation
and Safety Commission and Virginia Western
Community College Board.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
The following nominations were made at the May 8, 1990 board
meeting.
Fifth Planning District Commission
Supervisor Nickens nominated Supervisor Lee B. Eddy to serve a
three year term, representing elected officials. His term will
expire June 30, 1993.
Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission
Supervisor Eddy nominated William J. Skelton, Jr.to another three-
year term representing the Windsor Hills Magisterial District. His
term will expire June 30, 1993.
Transportation and Safety Commission
Supervisor Eddy nominated Delton R. Jessup to another four-year
term representing the State Police. His term will expire
June 30, 1994.
Virginia Western Community College Board
Supervisor Nickens nominated Monty Plymale to another four-year
term. His term will expire June 30, 1994.
/ jl' / r ~r
RECOMMENDATION•
It is recommended that these appointments by confirmed by the Board
of Supervisors.
Respectfully submitted,
Approved by,
~~~~ ~
Mary H. Allen
Clerk to the Board
~ /~
Elmer C. Hodge?
County Administrator
----------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved (~ Motion by: Bob L. Johnson No Yes Abs ent
Denied ( ) Eddy x
Received ( ) Johnson x
Ref erred ( ) McGraw x
To ( ) Nickens x
Robers x
cc: File
Fifth Planning District Commission File
Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission File
Transportation and Safety Commission File
Virginia Western Community College Board File
ACTION NO.
A-61290-10.b
ITEM NUMBER ~'~
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: June 12, 1990
AGENDA ITEM: Request for approval of a Raffle Permit from the
Roanoke County AMVETS Post 92
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The Roanoke County AMVETS Post 92 has requested a Raffle Permit
for a raffle to be held in Roanoke County on August 11, 1990.
This application has been reviewed by the Commissioner of Revenue
and he recommends that it be approved. The application is on
file in the Clerk's Office.
The organization has paid the $25.00 fee.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the application for a Raffle Permit be
approved.
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
m~-~- ~- ~' <` l~`
Mary H. Allen Elmer C. Hodge
Clerk to the Board County Administrator
----------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved ( ~ Motion by: Bob L. Johnson No Yes Abs ent
Denied ( ) Eddy x
Received ( ) Johnson x
Referred ( ) McGraw x
To ( ) Nickens x
Robers x
cc: File
Bingo/Raffle File
~/
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
~~
COMMISSIONER OF THE REVENUE
APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO CONDUCT RAFFLES OR BINGO
Application is hereby made for a bingo game or raffle permit.
This application is made subject to all County and State laws,
ordinances, rules, and regulations now in force, or that may be
enacted hereafter and which are hereby agreed to by the under-
signed applicant and which shall be deemed a condition under
which this permit is issued.
All applicants should exercise extreme care to ensure the accura-
cy of their responses to the following questions. Bingo games
and raffles are strictly regulated by Title 18.2-340.1 et. se~C.
of the criminal statutes of the Virginia Code, and by Section
4-86 et. sec.. of the Roanoke County Code. These laws authorize
the County Board of Supervisors to conduct a reasonable investiga-
tion prior to granting a bingo or raffle permit. The Board has
sixty days from the filing of an application to grant or deny the
permit. The Board may deny, suspend, or revoke the permit of any
organization found not to be in strict compliance with county and
state law.
Any person violating county or state regulations concerning these
permits shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. Any person who
uses any part of the gross receipts from bingo or raffles for any
purpose other than the lawful religious, charitable, community,
or educational purposes for which the organization is specifi-
cally organized, except for reasonable operating expenses, shall
be guilty of a Class 6 felony.
THIS APPLICATION IS R: (check one)
Name of Organization ,9/~"r ~~-~
Street Address ~~~~~~~~ e ~ ~~~ ~////~~~
Mailing Address tai-/~~ /~~~~~ ~S'~~~ ~~(~~~
City, State, Zip Code ~~9.~p>Yc.~ !~~ ~SI~,L,~
Purpose and Type of Organization ~` p~ /,,~ ~,,.P ,~~,~~
RAFFLE PERMIT BINGO GAMES
When was the organization founded?
1
Roanoke County meeting place? _~~/?/~,~:
Has organization been in existence in Roanoke County for two con-
tinuous years? YES NO /I~p
11s the organization non-profit? YES NO
-J Indicate Federal Identification Number # ~
Attach copy of IRS Tax Exemption letter.- n vt~'e ~~
'Officers of the Organization: ?.'~.
President: ~~~/~yj ~(j,~ L~
~,.F
~~. ,~
Vice-President ~ /~~~,~~~
Address: ~5~~~ ~~~ ~-~1C, ~'~ Address: l~ o y ~~ y~, ,r= ~~~
Secretary:~~_~~~~ c~1Z Treasurer: ~~~~,_uL.`s~~.J
Address: vii-~~~~.~~,~_fg~t~'~tf~/JI,Address: _~Sy/ U.~,~f~ !~-~'~~LJ~t~~u.~
Member authorized to be responsible for Raffle or Bingo opera-
tions:
Name~~~~/ ~ ~ }~j
Home Add r e s s t~7 ~~~ ~"~/,,t ,~q ~ ,q ~ ~ ,~ /J~
Phone~r~ ~c~- ~,~ ~ ~ Bus . Phone ~/D i/ ~
A COMPLETE LIST OF THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF CURRENT MEMBER-
SHIP MUST BE FURNISHED WITH THIS APPLICATION.
Specific location where Raffle or Bingo G?re is to be conducted.
"~it1~ /e ~0~~1 /~'~/
~T
RAFFLES: Date of Drawing ~~ jgU~ Time of Drawing~~~'-'¢
BINGO: Days of Week & Hours of Activity:
Sunday From To
Monday From To
Tuesday From To
Wednesday From To
Thursday From To
Friday From To
Saturday From To
2
State specifically how the proceeds from the Bingo/Raffle will be
used. List in detail the planned or intended use of the proceeds.
Use estimates amounts if necessary.
~~f ~ {l2 ~~ ~ E.~''Ytif_~ '~ ~~ Yom-. G~.~=S -F-. ~ ~Z~~~
~~- ~ ~~ •
3
BINGO: Complete the following:
Legal owner(s) of the building where BINGO is to be conducted:
Name:
Address:
County
State Zip
Is the building owned by a 501-C non-profit organization?
Seating capacity for each location:
Parking spaces for each location:
ALL RAFFLE AND BINGO APPLICANTS MUST ANSWER QUESTIONS 1 - 19
1. Gress receipts from all sources related to the operation of
Bingo games or Instant Bingo by calendar quarter for prior calen-
dar year period.
BINGO INSTANT BINGO
lst Quarter
2nd Quarter
3rd Quarter
4th Quarter
Total
1st Quarter
2nd Quarter
3rd Quarter
4th Quarter
Total
2. Does your organization understand that it is a violation of
law to enter into a contract with any person or firm, associa-
tion, organization, partnership, or corporation of any classifica-
tion whatsoever, for the purpose of organizing, managing, or con-
ducting Bingo Games or Raffles? ~,~ S
3. Does your organization understand that it must maintain and
file complete records of receipts and disbursements pertaining to
Bingo games and Raffles, and that such records are subject to
audit by the Commissioner of the Revenue?~
4. Does your organization understand. that the Commissioner of
the Revenue or his designee has the right to go upon the premises
on which any organization is conducting a Bingo game or raffle,
to perform unannounced audits, and to secure for audit all re-
cords required to be maintained for Bingo games or raffles?
e
4
5. Does your organization understand that a Financial Report
must be filed with the Commissioner of the Revenue on or before
the first day of November of each calendar year for which a per-
mit has been issued?
6. Does your organization understand that if gross receipts ex-
ceed fifty thousand dollars during any calendar quarter, an addi-
tional Financial Report must be filed for such quarter no later
than sixty days following the last day of such quarter?~_
7. Does your organization understand that the failure to file
financial reports when due shall cause automatic revocation of
the permit, and no such organization shall conduct any Bingo game
or raffle thereafter until such report is properly filed and a
new permit is obtained?
8. Does your organization understand that each Financial Report
must be accompanied by a Certificate, verified under oath by the
Board of Directors, that the proceeds of any Bingo game or raffle
have been used for these lawful, religious, charitable, commu-
nity, or educational purposes for which the organization is spe-
cifically chartered or organized, and that the operation of Bingo
games or raffles have been in accordance with the provisio~s~o~f
Article 1.1 of Chapter 8, Title 18.2 of the Code of Virginia?~(~1eJ
9. Does your organization understand that a one percent_~udit
e of the gross receipts must be paid to the~oun y of Roanoke
upon submission of the annual financial report due on or before
the first of November?
10. Does your organization understand that this permit is valid
only in the County of Roanoke and only at such locations, and for
such dates, as are designated in the permit application? ~S
11. Does your organization understand that no person, except a
bona fide member of any such organization who shall have been a
member of such organization for at least ninety days prior to
such participation, shall participate in the management, opera-
tion, or conduct of any bingo game or raffle, and no person
shall receive any remuneration for participating in management,
operation, or conduct of any such game or raffle? ~ ~S
12. Has your organization attached a check fo.r the annual permit
fee in the amount of $25.00 payable to the County of Roanoke,
Virginia?
13. Does your organization understand that any organization found
in violation of the County Bingo and Raffle Ordinance or §18.2-
340.10 of the Code of Virginia authorizing this permit is subject
to having such permit revoked and any person, shareholder, agent,
member or employee of such organization who violates the above to
having such permit revoked and any person, shareholder, agent,
member or employee of such organization who violates the above
referenced Codes may be guilty of a felony?
5
~14. Has your organization attached a complete list of its member-
hip to this application form?
15. Has your organization attach d a copy of its bylaws to this
application form? U p~
16. Has the organization been declared
tion under the Virginia Constitution or
If yes, state whether exemption is for
or both and identify exempt property.-
17. State the specific type and purpose of the organization.
18. Is this organization incorporated in Virginia?_~
If yes, name and address of Registered Agent:
19. Is the organization registered with the Virginia Department
of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs pursuant to the Char able
Solicitations Act, Section 57-48 of the Virginia Code?
(If so, attach copy of registration.)
Has the organization been granted an exemption from registration
by the ~irginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer .Affairs?
L/ (If so, attach copy of exemption.)
ALL RAFFLE APPLICANTS DESCRIBE THE ARTICLES TO BE RAFFLED,
VALUE OF SUCH ARTICLES, AND PROCEED TO NOTARIZATION.
Article Description
~b~r
Fair Market Value
exempt from pro er y taxa-
statutes? ~~ ~U ~~~(~
real, personal property,
6
ALL BINGO APPLICANTS MUST ANSWER QUESTIONS 20 - 27 BEFORE
NOTARIZATION
RAFFLE APPLICANTS, GO TO NOTARIZATION.
20. Does your organization understand that the bingo games shall
not be conducted more frequently than two calendar days in any
calendar week?
21. Does your organization understand that it is required to keep
complete, records of the bingo game. These records based on §18.2-
340.6 of the Code of Virginia and X4.98 of Roanoke County Code
must include the following:
a. A record of the date, quantity, and card value of instant
bingo supplies purchased, as well as the name and address of
the supplier of such instant bingo supplies, and written
invoice or receipt is also required for each purchase of in-
stant bingo supplies?
b. A record in writing of the dates on which Bingo is played,
the number of people in attendance on each date, and the
amount of receipts and prizes on each day?
(These records must be retained for three years.)
c. A record of the name and address of each individual to whom a
door prize, regular or special Bingo game prize or jackpot
from the playing of Bingo is awarded?
d. A complete and itemized record of all receipts and disburse-
ments which support, and that agree with, the quarterly and
annual reports required to be filed, and that these records
must be maintained in reasonable order to permit audit?
22. Does your organization
be conducted at such time as
and only at such locations
this application?
understand that instant Bingo may only
regular Bingo game is in progress,
and at such times as are specified in
23. Does your organization understand that the gross receipts in
the course of a reporting year from the playing of instant Bingo
may not exceed 33 1/3$ of the gross receipts of an organization's
Bingo operation?
24. Does your organization understand it may not sell an instant
Bingo card to an individual below sixteen years of age?
25. Does your organization understand that an organization whose
gross receipts from all bingo operations that exceed or are ex-
pected to exceed $75,000 in any calendar year shall have been
granted tax-exempt status pursuant to Section 501 C of the United
States Internal Revenue Service?
(Certificate must be attached.)
7
26. Does your organization understand that a Certificate of Occu-
pancy must be obtained or be on file which authorizes this use at
the proposed location?
27. Does your organization understand that awards or prize money
or merchandise valued in excess of the following amounts are
illegal?
a. No door prize shall exceed twenty-five dollars.
b. No regular Bingo or special Bingo game shall exceed One Hund-
red dollars.
c. No jackpot of any nature whatsoever shall exceed One Thousand
Dollars, nor shall the total amount of jackpot prizes awarded
in any one calendar day exceed One Thousand Dollars.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
NOTARIZATION: THE FOLLOWING OATH MUST BE TAKEN BY ALL
APPLICANTS
J
I hereby swear or affirm under the penalties of perjury as set
forth in §18.2 of the Code of Virginia, that all of the above
statements are true to the best of my knowledge, information, and
beliefs. All questions have been answered.
Signed by:
My commission expires:
19
Notary Public
RETURN THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION T0:
COMMISSIONER OF THE REVENUE
P.O. Box 20409
Roanoke, VA 24018-0513
8
Subscribed and sworn before me, this day of _ _ _19
NOT VALID UNLESS COUNTERSIGNED
The above application, having been found in due form, is approved
and issued to the applicant to have effect until December 31st of
this calendar year.
Date Commissi ner of t evenue
The above application is not approved.
Date Commissioner of the Revenue
9
AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 1990
RESOLUTION 61290-10.c REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF
MELISSA DRIVE AND MELISSA CIRCLE INTO THE VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, as follows:
1. That this matter came this day to be heard upon the
proceedings herein, and upon the application of Melissa Drive and
Melissa Circle to be accepted and made a part of the Secondary
System of State Highways under Section 33.1-229 of the Virginia
State Code.
2. That it appears to the Board that drainage easements and
a fifty (50) foot right-of-way for said road have heretofore been
dedicated by virtue of a certain map known as Bali Hi' I Estates
Subdivision which map was recorded in Plat Book 10, Page 140, of
the records of the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke
County, Virginia, on April 4, 1986 and that by reason of the
recordation of said map no report from a Board of Viewers, nor
consent or donation of right-of-way from the abutting property
owners is necessary. The Board hereby guarantees said right-of-
way for drainage.
3. That said roads known as Melissa Drive and Melissa Circle
and which is shown on a certain sketch accompanying this
Resolution, be, and the same are hereby established as public roads
to become a part of the State Secondary System of Highways in
Roanoke County, only from and after notification of official
acceptance of said street or highway by the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson to approve the
resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Robers
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens
A COPY TESTE:
!y ~ ~-~~
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering
Arnold Covey, Director, Development & Inspections, and
copy for Virginia Department of Transportation
ITEM NUMBER IY =~
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: June 12, 1990
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Melissa Drive and Melissa Circle into the
Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Barry J. St. John the developer of Bali Ha'I Estates,
requests that the Board of Supervisors approve a resolution to
the Virginia Department of Transportation requesting that they
accept 0.05 miles of Melissa Drive and 0.12 miles of Melissa
Circle.
The staff has inspected this road along with representatives
of the Virginia Department of Transportation and find the road is
acceptable.
FISCAL IMPACT: ~'~~
No county funding is required.
RECOMMENDATIONS•
The staff recommends that the Board approve a resolution to
the VDOT requesting that they accept Melissa Drive and Melissa
Circle into the Secondary Road System.
SUBMITTED BY:
~~4'X~'
Phillip Henry, P. E.
Director of Engineering
APPROVED:
~ ~ ~~2
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
'/~~
Approved
Denied
Received
Referred
to
Motion by:
ACTION VOTE
No Yes Abs
Eddy
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
Robers
~~
AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 1990
RESOLUTION REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF
MELISSA DRIVE AND MELISSA CIRCLE INTO THE VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That this matter came this day to be heard upon the
proceedings herein, and upon the application of Melissa Drive and
Melissa Circle to be accepted and made a part of the Secondary
System of State Highways under Section 33.1-229 of the Virginia
State Code.
2. That it appears to the Board that drainage easements
and a fifty (50) foot right-of-way for said road have heretofore
been dedicated by virtue of a certain map known as Bali Hi'I
Estates Subdivision which map was recorded in Plat Book 10, Page
140, of the records of the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
Roanoke County, Virginia, on April 4, 1986 and that by reason of
the recordation of said map no report from a Board of Viewers,
nor consent or donation of right-of-way from the abutting
property owners is necessary. The Board hereby guarantees said
right-of-way for drainage.
3. That said roads known as Melissa Drive and Melissa
Circle and which is shown on a certain sketch accompanying this
4
` _
Resolution, be, and the same are hereby established as public
roads to become a part of the State Secondary System of Highways
in Roanoke County, only from and after notification of official
acceptance of said street or highway by the Virginia Department
of Transportation.
5
~ / ."' ,L~
'L` r
NORTB
c
DESCRIPTION:
1) Melissa Dr., from the intersection of Terry Dr. (State Route
1091) to the intersection of Melissa Circle.
2) Melissa Circle from the intersection of Melissa Dr. to each
cul-de-sac.
LENGTH: (1) 0.05 Miles (2) 0.12 Miles
RIGHT OF WAY: (1) 50 Feet (2) 50 Feet
ROADWAY WIDTH: (1) 30 Feet (2) 30 Feet
SURFACE WIDTH: (1) 20 Feet (2) 20 Feet
SERVICE: (1) 0 Connector (2) 3 Homes
IMPROVEMENT NECESSA RY:
RFr(1MMFNf1ATTf1N
ACCEPTANCE OF MELISSA DRIVE AND MELISSA CIRCLE
COMMUNITY SBRVICB.S INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ANDDBVBLOPMBNT SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM
3
PROPOSED ADDITION SHOWN IN GRAY
~ / i
AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 1990
RESOLUTION 61290-10.d REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF
COUNTRYWOOD DRIVE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, as follows:
1. That this matter came this day to be heard upon the
proceedings herein, and upon the application of Countrywood Drive
to be accepted and made a part of the Secondary System of State
Highways under Section 33.1-229 of the Virginia State Code.
2. That it appears to the Board that drainage easements and
a fifty (50) foot right-of-way for said road have heretofore been
dedicated by virtue of a certain map known as Countrywood
Subdivision which map was recorded in Plat Book Page ,
of the records of the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
Roanoke County, Virginia, on
and that by reason of the
recordation of said map no report from a Board of Viewers, nor
consent or donation of right-of-way from the abutting property
owners is necessary. The Board hereby guarantees said right-of-
way for drainage.
3. That said road known as Countrywood Drive and which is
shown on a certain sketch accompanying this Resolution, be, and
the same are hereby established as public roads to become a part
of the State Secondary System of Highways in Roanoke County, only
from and after notification of official acceptance of said street
or highway by the Virginia Department of Transportation.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson to approve the resolution, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Robers
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens
A COPY TESTE:
`mQ-~~ /'C7` -
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering
Arnold Covey, Director, Development & Inspections, and
copy for Virginia Department of Transportation
ITEM NUMBER ~ -' S
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOICE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: June 12, 1990
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Countrywood Drive into the Virginia
Department of Transportation Secondary Road System.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Mr. & Mrs. Edward G. Hayes the developer of Countrywood,
requests that the Board of Supervisors approve a resolution to
the Virginia Department of Transportation requesting that they
accept 0.29 miles of Countrywood Drive.
The staff has inspected this road along with representatives
of the Virginia Department of Transportation and find the road is
acceptable.
FISCAL IMPACT: ~~~
No county funding is required.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The staff recommends that the Board approve a resolution to
the VDOT requesting that they accept Countrywood Drive into the
Secondary Road System.
SUBMITTED BY:
Phillip Henry, E.
Director of Engineering
APPROVED:
,, C-1 ~
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
---------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved ( ) Motion b No Yes Abs
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred
to
Y•
Eddy
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
Robers
-~
AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 1990
RESOLUTION REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF
COUNTRYWOOD DRIVE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That this matter came this day to be heard upon the
proceedings herein, and upon the application of Countrywood Drive
to be accepted and made a part of the Secondary System of State
Highways under Section 33.1-229 of the Virginia State Code.
2. That it appears to the Board that drainage easements
and a fifty (50) foot right-of-way for said road have heretofore
been dedicated by virtue of a certain map known as Countrywood
Subdivision which map was recorded in Plat Book Page ,
of the records of the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
Roanoke County, Virginia, on and that by reason of the
recordation of said map no report from a Board of Viewers, nor
consent or donation of right-of-way from the abutting property
owners is necessary. The Board hereby guarantees said right-of-
way for drainage.
3. That said road known as Countrywood Drive and which is
shown on a certain sketch accompanying this Resolution, be, and
the same are hereby established as public roads to become a part
of the State Secondary System of Highways in Roanoke County, only
from and after notification of official acceptance of said street
or highway by the Virginia Department of Transportation.
2
~
~
~' b
s ~
~
1 ~. c
/
~
--- ~~
/ X
~ ~'~ ~
pad ~
d~
~ j 6Q
695
s LOST ~ MObN7A1 ^ c 9t
s I 1
~ _ \ G
~ , &g
69i,
1
~
^
n~ ~ ~ ~~
hri 1
1
j 1
~\h 0 7 0~/
/'~ ~ ~~ 6i2
~ (,
786 ~ ~ ~`. _;917___ ~~ 760 0 6
.
J ) F / 611
/O ,~
° :
~ ~~r ~,
~
y
~~~ o
Ti 0 9t'hT
m 1
~
/~
~
~~~ »'' u
,
. VICINITY MAP rr
~;
~e~~E i~\
o ~~ ,,
_, ,
~~
NORTH
. .
32 7s9~ 31 30
34
' 33
200 Ac
2.00 Ac 2.10 Ac IKIO
! ..- ...<a r
A 2.2SAC 2.35 AC 762 76 29 19
75 e2 7S e6 - 1.93 Ac ZBSAt
28 ~
~~ 35 7771 1609 2.32 AC
2.70 AC 777e 764
~ 26 27 T6~3
36 2 40 Ac 2.26 Ac
2.27Ac ~
ifs
40 716•
~
3.IS Ac ^
953
23
7ez9 25
a
5.64 Ac
22S Ac
,~ O
~•
<
36
" 37
2.86 Ac ID1 7526
`3.21 AClp 342 Ac
eso~ ~ 24 ~ ? I
~ -_ \ I.S34c 3.60 Ac
'
~' ~
2
'
/
2
~
/
` BO Ac
' \
. \ ~ .~
- / c
~~
~~
~
PROPOSED ADDITION SHOWN IN GRAY
DESCRIPTION:
1) Countrywood Drive from Bent Mountain Road
(Route 221) to the cul-de-sac.
LENGTH: (1) 0.29 miles
RIGHT OF WAY: (1) 50 feet
ROADWAY WIDTH: (1) 38 feet
SURFACE WIDTH: (1) 22 feet
SERVICE: (1) 6 homes
IMPROVEMENT NECESSARY:
RECOMMENDATION:
wa
20
4.69AC
8239 /
COMMUNITY SERVICES ACCEPTANCE OF COUNTRYWOOD DRIVE INTO THE
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY
AND DEVELOPMENT ROAD SYSTEM
3
i._..
ACTION NO. A-61290-10.e
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORSOOF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: June 12, 1990
AGENDA ITEM: Donation of drainage easements through Lots 1 and
2, Section 14 along Penn Forest Boulevard, and Lots
37, 38, 39, and 40, Block 3 along Overhill Trail,
and Lots 11 and 12, Block 3 on Verona Trail, all in
the Penn Forest Subdivision, to the County of
Roanoke
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
This consent agenda item involves the donation of the
following easements, fifteen (15') feet in width, to the County of
Roanoke for drainage purposes in relation to the Overhill Trail
Project in the Penn Forest Subdivision:
a) Donation of a fifteen (15') foot drainage easement from
Guy M. Hicks III and Marci S. Hicks, husband and wife,
(Deed Book 1286, page 1666) (Tax Map No. 87.05-2-1) as
shown on a plat prepared by the Roanoke County Engineer-
ing Department, dated 13 February 1990.
b) Donation of a fifteen (15') foot drainage easement from
James L. Korzik, single, (Deed Book 1313, page 1169) (Tax
Map No. 87.06-6-45) as shown on a plat prepared by the
Roanoke County Engineering Department, dated 13 February
1990.
c) Donation of a fifteen (15') foot drainage easement from
Jerry M. Garrett and Martha S. Garrett, husband and wife,
(Deed Book 1093, page 374) (Tax Map No. 87.05-2-12) as
shown on a plat prepared by the Roanoke County Engineer-
ing Department, dated 13 February 1990.
d) Donation of a fifteen (15') foot drainage easement from
John D. Kirby and Susan C. Kirby, husband and wife, (Deed
Book 1233, page 431) (Tax Map No. 87.05-2-13) as shown
on a plat prepared by the Roanoke County Engineering
Department, dated 13 February 1990.
e) Donation of a fifteen (15') foot drainage easement from
Albert S. Galop and Valeria C. Galop, husband and wife,
(Deed Book 1282, page 1319) (Tax Map No. 87.05-2-2) as
shown on a plat prepared by the Roanoke County Engineer-
ing Department, dated 13 February 1990.
r ~ / .."`
f) Donation of a fifteen (15') foot drainage easement from
William F. Zackmann and Dorothy M. Zackmann, husband and
wife, (Deed Book 826, page 406) (Tax Map No. 87.06-6-
44) as shown on a plat prepared by the Roanoke County
Engineering Department, dated 13 February 1990.
g) Donation of a fifteen (15') foot drainage easement from
Elvin H. Ingram and Mildred S. Ingram, husband and wife,
(Deed Book 789, page 207) (Tax Map No. 87.06-6-43) as
shown on a plat prepared by the Roanoke County Engineer-
ing Department, dated 13 February 1990.
The location and dimensions of these easements have been
reviewed and approved by the County's engineering staff.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends acceptance of these easements.
Respectfully submitted,
V c ie L. H m n
Assistant Co my Attorney
Action
Approved (x) Motion by Bo 7c~hnen„
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred
to
Vote
No Yes Abs ent
Eddy x
Johnson x
McGraw x
Nickens x
Robers x
cc: File
Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering
Cliff Craig, Director, Utilities
>~IETlE3 AJ~ BOUNDS DESCRfPT7ON SHOWN ON TH/3 PLAT REPRESENT A C~CM1pipSft'E OF DEED
PLATS, AND CALCULATED lNFORMAflON AND DO NOT REFLECT AN ACCURATE BOUNDARY BtJRVEY.
51 g ovF /~ -- ~
f~R~ 9y~~ r
S '9,4~
P ~~ E
P~G• S 40°57 E
12.35'
Wr
"~ N GUY M. A' B MARC/ S.
N H/CKS
Z
.\
\ 15~NEW
O
DRAINAGE h ~
~~~~ EASEMENT ti ~
~~
\\
w
~ `\\
~-~
~~
~,
h~
TAX MAP NO. 8705-2-I
SCALE: 1~~= 40'
PLAT SHOWING NEW DRAINAGE EASEMENT
BEING CONVEYED TO ROANOKE COUNTY BY
GUY M. III 6 MARCI S. HICKS
PREPARED BY: ROANOKE COUNTY ENG/NEERING DEPARTMENT DATE: 2 - 13 - 90
METES AND BOUNDS DESCRlPT1ON SHOWN ON THIS PLAT REPRESENT A COMPOSITE OF DEEDSy
PLATS, AND CALCULATED INFORMATION AND DO NOT REFLECT AN AG~IRATF BOUNDARY SURVEY.
TAX MAP NO. 87.06-6-45
PLAT SHOWING NEW DRAINAGE EASEMENT
BEING CONVEYED TO ROANOKE COUNTY BY
JAMES L. KORZIK
PREPARED BY: ROANOKE COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
SCALE: ~"= 40'
DATE: 2 - 13 - 90
METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION SHOWN ON THIS PLAT REPRESENT A COMPOSITE OF DEEDS,
PLATS, AND CALCULATED /NFORMATTON AND DO NOT REFLECT ANACCURATE BOUNDARY SURVEY.
'.~. ,
1
~,>.
~~
VERONA TRA/L
TAX MAP NO. 87.05-2-12
PLAT SHOWING NEW DRAINAGE EASEMENT
BEING CONVEYED TO ROANOKE COUNTY BY
JERRY M. & MARTHA S. GARRETT
PREPARED BY: ROANOKE COUNTY ENGINEER/NG DEPARTMENT
~ji~
-r
SCALE: i "= 50'
DATE: 2 -13 - 90
METES ANO BOUNDS DESCRIPTION SHOtNN ON THIS PLAT REPRESENT A COMPOSITE OF DEEDSy
PLATS, AND CALCULATED INFORMATION AND DO NOT REFLECT AN ACCURATE 80UNDARY SURVEY.
--- W
\\
\ \
\\~
`\` \
..^^`
V-
p~'`
`~6`
\\
VERIDNA TRA/L
TAX MAP NO. 87.05-2-i3
PLAT SHOWING NEW DRAINAGE EASEMENT
' BEING CONVEYED TO ROANOKE COUNTY BY
' JOHN D. ~ SUSAN C. KIRBY
PREPARED BY: ROANOKE COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
SCALE: t" = s o'
DATE: 2-13-90
1 ifETES AND BOUNDS DESCRp~T10N SHOWN ON THIS PLAT REPRESENT A COA,/POS17r6 OF pEFD~
' PLA TSy A!~ CALCULATED /NFORMATION AND DO NOT REFLECT AN ACCURATE BOUNDARY SURVEY.
o^~ /
~ 0~ ti ~ ,
~~
Q~'
~•~ ~ ~ rr.
~~ ~~
~0~ `~ ~ 1 15' NEW DRAINAGE
' ~ EASEMENT
h~ '/
~~ ~~a~ J
SB•n
. ~~/
Exist 20~ Esmt. 7
~o
~~~ Q.
~~~ F
ALBERT S. 8 VsiL ER/A C.
GA L OP
S
2`~ 2~.
\~
TAX MAP NO. 87.05-2-2
PLAT SHOWING NEW DRAINAGE EASEMENT
BEING CONVEYED TO ROANOKE COUNTY BY
ALBERT S. & VALERIA C. GALOP
PREPARED BY: ROANOKE COUNTY ENGlNEER/NG DEPARTMENT
SCALE:
1"=40'
DATE: 2 -13.90
METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION SHOWN ON THIS PLAT REPRESENT A Cpl{(POSITF OF DEED.
PLATS, AND CALCULATED INFORMATION AND DO NOT REFLECT AN~4000RATE BOUNDARY SURVEY.
oL , .
TAX MAP NO. 87.06-s-43
PLAT SHOWING NEW DRAINAGE EASEMENT
BEING CONVEYED TO ROANOKE COUNTY BY
ELVIN H. & MILDRED S. INGRAM
PREPARED BY: ROANOKE COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
SCALE: I "= 40'
DATE: 2 - 13 -90
METES AND BOUNDS DESCRlP]70N SHOWN ON THIS PLAT REPRESENT A C'OlfIPOSlTE OF DEED
.,PLATS, AND CALCULATED lNFORMATI.ON AND DO NOT REFLECT-AN ACaCURATE BOUNDARY SURVEY.
OL ~-.C~
TAX MAP NO, 87.06-6-44
PLAT SHOWING NEW DRAINAGE EASEMENT
BEING CONVEYED TO ROANOKE COUNTY BY
WILLIAM F. & DOROTHY M. ZACKMAN
PREPARED BY: ROANOKE QOUNTYENGINEER/NG DF_PARTMENT
SCALE: I" = 4 0'
DATE: 2 -13 -90
ACTION NO.
A-61290-10.f
ITEM NO. ~ °"
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: June 12, 1990
AGENDA ITEM: Donation of drainage easements through Tract III-
B-1, Tract III-B-2, and the remaining North Portion
of Tract III-B, and donation of a parcel of real
estate for street purposes, Southwest Industrial
Park, Cave Spring Magisterial District, to the
County of Roanoke
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUNIlKARY OF INFORMATION
This consent agenda item involves the donation of the
following easements, ten (10') feet in width, to the County of
Roanoke for drainage purposes, and donation of a parcel of land in
fee simple for street purposes, in relation to the extension of
Commonwealth Drive in the Southwest Industrial Park in the Cave
Spring Magisterial District.
a) Donation of a ten (10') foot drainage easement from
Insulation Systems, (Deed Book 1315, page 123) (Tax Map
No. 87.14-3-1.4) as shown on a plat prepared by Lumsden
Associates, P.C., dated 14 February 1990.
b) Donation of a ten (10') foot drainage easement from E.
Nelson Brumfield and Robert A. Brumfield, (Deed Book
1298, page 893) (Tax Map No. 87.14-3-1.6) as shown on a
plat prepared by Lumsden Associates, P.C., dated 14
February 1990.
c) Donation of a ten (10') foot drainage easement from
Gormon R. Howell and Sidney A. Maupin, (Deed Book 1312,
page 793) (Tax Map No. 87.14-3-1.5) as shown on a plat
prepared by Lumsden Associates, P.C., dated 14 February
1990.
d) Donation of a parcel of land for street purposes
consisting of 10,024 square feet from Mountain State
Bank, et als, (Deed Book 1316, page 803 and Deed Book
1317, page 677) (Tax Map No. 87.14-3-2) as shown on a
plat prepared by Lumsden Associates, P.C., dated 12
February 1990.
The location and dimensions of these properties have been
reviewed and approved by the County~s engineering staff.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends acceptance of these properties.
Respectfully submitted,
V ck a L. Hu a
Assistant Cou ty Attorney
Action Vote
No Yes Absent
Approved (x) Motion by Bob L. ohnGnn Eddy x
Denied ( ) Johnson x
Received ( ) McGraw x
Referred Nickens x
to Robers x
cc: File
Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering
Cliff Craig, Director, Utilities
I 74
EX15t 17' P,G.E
- -
n M N
m
'`
I
m
tt`
Q
3
~j
~} F-~ m
N -
`D
r ~ v
~ ~ m f _.
b ~.
~
k ._ ,~ ~
r
~: 2
------ .
_.`_
it
~~ APPROVED:
~'
3~0
'~
Py,
P ~, q
~
F
o
ME
M
P,~ocx l
I a I
"MEAr UWGARK,'' SUAhrV151 0N
I
I P.9. 6
( P4. A!
I
15 ?6 27
78 I 49
I
N/4°2!'7 6"E-- Nr5'0 '37"E --
.- (66dz------- 199.31•--- - ___ _`--_
- EXIh~ 15' PUbil6 Nf161~Y EASEMEN>•
7.r4-3-1.4
t
AX "B N M
~
~
~
r
T
r l aA G 1 ~- PJ ~ ~ ~ e ~
}
'^i
f P. g, 11 PG. 57) n
~ v
~
n`
~" l~(~ V
p Q N
NEW f0' 1~~ZAlNRGE EASEMElYT
c
~-' Ert9t. hRArNAGE EASEMENT
Ex15T 30'r~rNIMUM 9urigrNG 6rNE~
--- --
- -------
--- y /4• r0'35"W, 360 B4'
GOMMONWEA~1"H ~JaIVE (5o'a ~~r) ~
( VA. SEGON~9AaV ROUTE ; 1723) ~
~ ~
AGENT, ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
x
O' '•p
B. LEE c~
v HENDERSON, JR.>
i3.~1'.UQ'`,.....~ ~.
' (LICENSE) No.
1480
~~~ susv~°4
DATE
PLAT SHOWING
NEW 10' DRAINAGE EASEMENT
BEING GRANTED TO
COUNTY OF ROANOKE
BY
INSULATION SYSTEMS
THRU TRACT III-B-1 (D.B. 1315, PAGE 123)
CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
` SCALE: 1" = 100 ~ DATE: 14 FEBRUARY 1990
LUMSDEN ASSOCIATES, P. C.
ENGINEERS-SURVEYORS-PLANNERS
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
COMM. MB4 (fj5 RG
~~p0 q' p6.~'°
~ of
cclI oGw A M
,,,~
"MEAgOV yGARK ° hURI~. I
P.g b II PG, B!
ZB I Z9 30 I 9coGK G. SEC y3
"PENN FOAcbT"
N15'Og'37"E. 0, 92'
- - - - ~ N7 °?4~ Pb. b P6. B3
_ _ 46"E
`---- - l00,11~ ' __-~~
rA~~~89ra~9-r.4 ~
e~Q EXrSr !y' pugylG 0116/tY EASEM
ENr
rAAGf lII-5.1 =
57~`'
fl P6
~ °'
v ~`~ o `t~
fAX ~' 87/4-3•!,5
.
P.g
;r ~ ti , • m a' N
° NORT N PORT ION OF
N ~ ~ N ~
~ TRAGT lII-13
z ~ ~ o ~ (4.g. 13rZ PG 993)
EX/6r 30'MINlNUM 0Ul60lNG 6JN~~ -NtvP (!I' ~1HAINA(ar EAhEMEN~
----~_
7P.!
-1 ~r ..
GDMMONINEAGTN
VA. SEG. ROUrE ~ 1~Z3-)
GURvE "A"
R a 749.00'
A = 41 Bb'
GH. = 4!. Ab' r
Ge.g, = S !5°46'98"W
GuRyE ~.A„--~_ -
~ql- VE ~5p'R~W)
APPROVED:
AGENT, ROANOKE COUNTY DATE
PLANNING COMMISSION
PLAT SHOWING
NEW 10' DRAINAGE EASEMENT
BEING GRANTED TO
COUNTY OF ROANOKE
BY
E. NELSON BRUMFIELD & ROBERT A. BRUMFIELD
~ALTd 0~ THRU TRACT III-B-2 (D.B. 1298, PAGE 893)
~
~ Lf CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
~
O
~, C ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
8. LEE ~
HENDERSON
JR.~ SCALE: 1" . 100 ~ DATE: 14 FEBRUARY 1990
,
l3. au-d're` Cri.
(IICENS~ No.
1480 LUMSDEN ASSOCIATES, P. C.
4,
0 ENGINEERS-SURVEYORS-PLANNERS
~~ 9UAr~ ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
oFP
960GK A
---"MEA40-1'GARK" 5Ug'U --I
P9.6 PFi.IBI
78 I 3o I
N~
1 ~ ~----
.
E I ~ -------
341. B3' ---
~1 I NORtH POR>•!ON OF I
z- 1 TaAGr II1•g 1
~ 1 A.9. 131Z PC, 793 0°1
NI i
NEW ~0' QaArNA~,E ~,
ti' ~
~, ,
~ I EASEMENT I ti~ ~ m
~LJ-I
----~-j• EXIbT, 30' MrN~_~~NF
-_ rl ~ ~
f ~ ~. ~ ~
_
~
lAx ° B7.i4-3--.6 Nr
T~acr~z-g-2
4.9. f296 Pb. B93 z
1 GURvE "A"!
MMONwEgI,TN DRIVE ~ S3g%36p3,,~ ~
~~ (VA ~E~pN9AKY RourE r7z~~
Guave "A''
d = 21°13'2f"
7 = 14p X12'
R = 7a9, vo'
A = ?77.43'
GH = 775.85'
W
H
Q
N
H
ao
O t-I
U ~
W ~-+
x~
O U
w `~ z
~• ~ H
o Nz
a` z z
D_ w FC
a ~w
r
PLAT SHOWING
NEW 10' DRAINAGE EASEMENT
BEING GRANTED TO
COUNTY OF ROANOKE
BY
GORMON R, HOWELL & SIDNEY A, MAUPIN
THRU THE REMAINING
"NORTH PORTION OF TRACT III-B"
(D.B. 1312, PAGE 793)
CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
SCALE: 1" = 100' DATE: 14 FEBRUARY 1990
LUMSDEN ASSOCIATES, P. C.
ENGINEERS-SURVEYORS-PLANNERS
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
960GK G. 4EG ~3
" PENN FDA6bf "
P9. 6 P4. 83
w '~ ~ .,.
u; ~
of II I of
I
t Wj I Z 3 Wij 4 5 I~~ 6
~I EI r5t. r5' P~UI 19GIc Ulrl) !fY f/rM'L'
--„ I I N? e'Il I I
?4 46 E~ ~~ ~~--7 ~~~9 35 E~ ---IIL---
- - _ - Rq.i5
~v B. LEE ' r~~t
HENDERSON, JR.r+
~.a~.~.,Y..l-,q...
(LICENSEI Na
1480
COMM. M B4 • B55 AG
Q ,~ 51 T
P~~
qPG~'~ ! SECTION »3 ~0~~~ f:"
fP~' ~ glOtK NN' ~OpEy1 ° MER~~ -._ ~~ ~JE ,,~•
E~' ~P~ 0 ~ PE ~ 63
~~ --- i o ~a~,
_ _ _ _- 7( h~P~Y,E Y Rogv
I ~ ocA r~ LY MAp
TAX "gT.t4-~J'1.50F
NppiN POR110N `~~ NOTE : 0 GA68
Pj I - SEfiMEN'5 Of TURN•A-R9UNn pU~b10E 50'
Tp,AGT ~~ `~ o I ~ wr:~rN of RoA~7 bNA66 aE~FRI r0 An/aarNG
Pp~pER1Y'H~HE~b ~ ~ ~ ~ 0-VNERS WHEN SAfq AOAn f9 EXTE"rnE4 A5
CTORMON R' puPIN Z A 5>'ATE (NA/N(AINEp ROAM.
g, ytptr6Y A M ~q3 ~ ~ ~ 1
~-, 13t2 ~' '~ I
•~P
Ex~ ~ Nil_ N 9UIGD~NG G1NEl 4Ja~4,
1723 5 ~p~~w) N51°2357"VY-,.
VAP16.
MMON~ EAfirH ~R~VF
~Q
I
E~yy ~'Mq4' '-
EX IyT• 20 P, U, E ~ I
I
~
I
~¢
I
~_
N N
M J `n
ml
v ~, a
m U g e l
~ MI
~ ~
k ~ b 4 I
~
s
4: ~ I
!
~
W
= ,,,_,~, ~ ` o To ~~ 4E~J1 GAtc9 r0 RDANOKE
-- GouNTY FOx SrREEt PURPOSES
> ~ Q 10,024 SA,Fr.
W
~ ~•°'r'rGUR4N'Z~l~~~ aEMA1hIING PORTION OF
~ TAX " 87.14-3-2
3 FROPER(Y OF
MOUNTAIN STATE SANK, /ONN 5 GRt55 4
4' `'= GNRt514FJ1El3 V GRf55, GO TR'l5TEb5
GN~BR ;Ne WIGC OF ADF:AN VERNON CR155
q.t3.1316 PG, 803
1 l3EMAlNING ACREAGE :19.5/ ACRES
~ CURVE DATA
CURVE ANGLE RAllIUS TAN. ARC CHORD CH. BEARING
r A 51°19'04" 25.00 12.01 22.39 21.65 N 12°56'31" E
B 282°38'08" 55.00 --- 271.31 68.75 S 51°23'57" E
C 51°19'04" 25.00 12.01 22.39 21.65 S 64°15'35" W
~ B-1 114°16`56" 55.00 85.15 109.70 92.40 N 44°25'27" E
B-2 114°16'56" 55.00 85.15,109.70 92.40, S 32°46'39" W
APPROVED:
_ _ - =~~
EaN ~pl~wpy G0,
AGENT, ROANOKE COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE
N~n,r oy~ '!O/u I f'~IWI NOTE:
1100 BENEFITROFYAWCURRENTATITLEIREPORTTAND
T}IERE MAY EXIST ENCUMBERANCES NOT SHOWN
HEREON.
PLAT SHOWING
AREA TO BE DEDICATED FOR 'STREET PURPOSES TO
COUNTY OF ROANOKE
BY
MOUNTAIN STATE BANK,
JOHN S. CRISS AND CHRISTOPHER V. CRISS,
CO-TRUSTEES UNDER THE WILL OF ADRIAN VERNON CRISS
BEING
tiALTH OF PART OF TAX MAP NUMBER 87.14-3-2
~1 y CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
O} r+PC ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
RENDER ON, JR ~ SCALE: 1" = 100' DATE: I4 FEBRUARY 1990
3. A'r-2'..,.~. ~,.
(LICENSEf No. LUMSDEN ASSOCIATES, P. C.
~ 1~~ ENGINEERS-SURVEYORS-PLANNERS
\~'D QrruYd~04 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
L.~
1- - -__
COMM. = 84.6S5RG
~ --1
COUNTY OF ROANORE, VIRGINIA
CAPITAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE
Beginning Balance at July 1, 1989
September 12, 1989 Contribution towards Hollins Fire Truck
March 13, 1990 Automatic Court Documentation System
April 24, 1990 Contribution towards Mt. Pleasant Rescue
Squad Truck
Balance as of June 12, 1990
Submitted by
Diane D. Hyatt
Director of Finance
$ 89,608
(25,000)
(25,000)
(30,000)
9,608
""'
COUNTY OF ROANORE, VIRGINIA
GENERAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE
~ of
Amount General Fund
Balance at July 1, 1989 $4,483,543 7.10
November 15, 1989 Dental Insurance (106,980)
November 28, 1989 Drainage Projects (180,000)
December 19, 1989 Library Automation (300,000)
December 19, 1989 Drainage Engineer - half year (17,500)
December 19, 1989 Bushdale Road Right of Way (15,000)
January 9, 1990 Hurricane Hugo Expenses (109,000)
January 2 3, 1990 Implementation of New (157,700)
Police Department
March 13, 1990 Contract Mowing and Equipment (50,000)
for Parks and Recreation
April 10, 1990 School Deficit (500,000)
April 10, 1990 Recycling Grant Matching Funds (150,600)
April 10, 1990 Renovation of the Offices of the
Treasurer, Commissioner of the
Revenue and Procurement 56 000
Balance as of June 12, 1990 2,840,763 4.500
Submitted by
Diane D. Hyatt
Director of Finance
On December 19, 1989, the Board of Supervisors adopted a goal statement to
maintain the General Fund Unappropriated Balance at a minimum of 6.25% of
General Fund expenditures ($63,168,000), which is $3,948,000.
~~
COUNTY OF ROANORE, VIRGINIA
RESERVE FOR BOARD CONTINGENCY
June 14, 1989
July 11, 1989
July 11, 1989
July 25, 1989
August 8, 1989
August 22, 1989
Beginning Balance at July 1, 1989
Additional Amount from 1989-90 Budget
Contribution to Va. Amateur Sports
Purchase of drainage easement
Option on 200 acres real estate
Donation to Julian Wise Foundation
County supplement for new position
in Sheriff's Department
Part time volunteer coordinator
August 22, 1989 Public Information for Police Department
referendum
November 28, 1989 Stormwater Feasibility Study
December 22, 1989 Copy machine rental for Treasurer's Office
(Administratively approved)
December 29, 1989 Portable telephones for Rescue personnel
(Administratively approved)
Balance as of June 12, 1990
Submitted by
~~~~
~J C.Ci~'ZSZ~ ~ .
Diane D. Hyatt
Director of Finance
$11,395
50,000
(25, ooo)
(5,000)
(3,750)
(5,000)
(869)
(5, 800)
(9,000)
(3,382)
(2,415)
(1,045)
134
ACTION NO.
ITEM NUMBER
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: June 12, 1990
AGENDA ITEM: Report on County Leased Space
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
BACKGROUND•
At the May 22, 1990 meeting of the Board of Supervisors, a
request was made of staff to provide to the Board a schedule of
the leased facilities of the County. The County currently has four
locations where office space is being leased from a third party
owner. Those spaces include the Department of Social Services,
located at the Salem Bank & Trust Building, VPI Extension Offices,
which are located on the Elizabeth Campus of Roanoke College, the
Brambleton Corporate Center, which houses the Departments of Real
Estate Assessment, Risk Management and Human Resources, and the
temporary facility being used by the Bent Mountain Library while
Bent Mountain Elementary School is being renovated.
Atttached you will find a schedule outlining the
characteristics of each of the leases and the total cost of the
rented space on an annual basis.
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACT:
RECOMMENDATION•
Respectfully submitted, Approved by,
L'~ /7~~
John M. Chambl'ss, Jr. Elmer C. Hodge
Assistant Administrator County Administrator
----------------------------------------
Approved ( ) Motion by:
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred ( )
To r ~
ACTION
VOTE
No Yes Abs
Eddy
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
Robers
Attachment
~ ~° m
~ ~ a m m y ° rm- ~ n cn i
a m m 3 m .z.. _ ^~ ~ z c i
r o a o ~ "{ ~ ~ m m a l
o m r m z ~ ~ z z m
~ Z v m m ~ ~ ~ ~ O
m ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ j ~ ~ ~
z m
cni~ vZi m m ~ ^~ o z v m
m m o ~ w N c m z l
a m ~ r ~ D
~ z r y r 1
m r A I
~ m m ~ i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
b9 1
O 1
1
N 1
Cn 1
A W j N
,NO N nji ~ ~ m N
z o
~ ~ o ~ .° ~' I n ~
~ c 0 00 ~ ~, ~ N r
~ O '-n p ~ V W 1
D ~ I
_ N I
O O O ~ O m 1
I
ts9 I
O 1
I
N I C
~ I H
V1 W v 1
.o m r'I
y m ~ 1 x
TI a ~ w ' --~
~ ~ 1
m
~ ~ O ~ O O ~ ~ N
~ H ~ ~A 1
~ p ~ V 1 Z
m m m o ~ w l
~ ~ ~ O O N 1
1
I
I
1
W I
1 (")
~ W N I O W
m j 1 ~
z m ~ ~ 1 v
cn m ' 3
~ a ~ ~ I
m ~ ~ ~ t -o o-., ' n cvr
a z z ~ _ I m m
~ 0 0 0 ,._, 1 z~
c ~ _c cn i--~ w i m z
~ ~ ~ . ~ :~ I .T7
V 1
p O D ~ N O I
O I
1
I
1
3 1
O I W
z 1 m
-i 1"' I
z z = ~ H z I r~ m
~ ~ N ~ 1 H 3
O ~ ~ \ i ~ O O
a a m a I a c
30 ° 1 z z
Z ; < --1
~ 1 a -<
x 1-'
N 1_. ~ z
p ~ I
O 1
I
I
1
1
1
1
F-+ 1
~ t.,. I O
Oi '-+ pi I 1
H (.11 C ~ I
V O O ~, N 1
~ O O O V ~ 1
W O p C O O I
w t0 I
w ~ M~
m
V
0
ACTION NO.
ITEM NUMBER V` ' Jr'
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: June 12, 1990
AGENDA ITEM: Report on Study of County Operations
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION•
I have contacted the University of Virginia Center for Public
Service about a peer review of Roanoke County operations. They are
very enthusiastic about the possibility of working with us. They
liked the idea of enlisting managers and department heads from
other localities to conduct the peer review which they would
coordinate.
If the budget does not permit us to study the entire county
operation in one year, it may be more feasible to concentrate on
parts of the operation each year and leaking this an annual program.
They estimate that it would take approximately three days onsite,
plus additional time to prepare a report. The cost for the first
year is estimated at $8,000.
I personally support the idea of this being an annual ongoing
project. As examples, General Services could be studied the first
year, the Finance operation the second year, and other departments
in following years. If the Board of Supervisors wishes to pursue
this further, I will have the UVA staff attend one of our board
meetings to define the scope of the project.
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
---------------------------------------
Approved ( )
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred ( )
To ( )
Motion by:
ACTION
VOTE
No Yes Abs
Eddy
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
Robers
K • +.
1
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: June 12, 1990
AGENDA ITEM: Potential Roanoke County Greenway Plan
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' S COMMENTS • (~h ~~' Z'.~Z.to ~ Qn ~~~
~.~~
earn c~c.~e.aa a..lr~~'" z-h¢,. -c.rn2pc~~ ~y~5~'
~ hctG`e- ~a.Phe.a -~i-e~c.cn. G2 /`c.~tr~¢,~.J ~' Z/tco, an of ~t n c_t,2~
`~'~'` ~ ~~~ 'a~L-o~~ ~~.~e~! o aal , rD /~2~~-e~C-ear/ 'moo- Gt d ~ t thc,oCZ.
. ~:~/LC.ch. ,c.cr~~.~ a.t~to-c,u -c.u~ .tom .c.ia C.e-z~1 a~tA~
B CA KGROUN ~ -~xt-~ Q'yt ~ u~-`'(z • ~p ~e~ 13oGL1 c+~ !.v-c-dhtd
.~e_oe.h_~ ,~c,c.c`Q.~~ cam' Q hD-z.c.~d ~ .u',!_L.u alQgl ,~ix~
At your April 4th meetin
g you requested staff to prepare a
report on a possible Roanoke County Greenway Plan. The staff has
compiled the following information for your consideration and
action.
What is a Greenwav~
A greenway can be broadly defined as a connected series of
land that includes conservation and recreation areas and is
developed to provide passive and active recreation opportunities
and to protect a communities natural resources such as open space,
critical habitats, and valuable viewsheds.
Greenways are usually thought of as being linear park or open
space areas. For this reason, initial discussions of greenway
planning in many communities has focused on major river and stream
corridors. However once planned and developed, many examples of
greenways incorporate other linear land features such as abandoned
railroad rights-of way, power line easements, and urban bikeways.
In addition, these linear areas are often connected by "greenway
nodes"--larger park or open space areas that serve as a focus of
recreational activity.
In Roanoke County, discussions to date have focused on our
river and major stream resources (Roanoke River, Tinker, Masons,
Back Creeks) as the major components of a greenway system. While
these resources could be a valuable component of a well designed
greenway plan, our concept of greenways should be expanded to
include both these and other types of linear areas, and "nodes" of
land that form important open spaces. Examples of these "nodes"
are numerous and would include such areas as the Spring Hollow
t:~ '- C!?
2
Reservoir site, the landfill site and existing County parks such
as Green Hill.
The land that makes up a greenway corridor can be owned by
individuals, businesses, or public entities. Some areas can be
open to the public for recreational purposes and other areas can
be private for conservation purposes.
Benefits of Greenways
Greenway plans are prepared and implemented for many different
reasons. Some communities initiate a greenway plan due to a strong
concern for preserving the natural environment, critical habitats
and important viewsheds that they are endowed with. Other
communities recognize the appeal and attractiveness of greenways
and initiate greenway development for the sole purpose of economic
development marketing. Still other communities want to enhance
their quality-of-life and provide some additional recreational
opportunities for their citizens. An additional benefit of some
greenway plans, and of particular importance to Roanoke County, may
be flood/storn-water run-off control. All of these reasons are
valid, important benefits of a well-prepared and implemented
greenway plan.
These benefits can be achieved through policies and
implementation strategies that include conservation easements,
conservation overlay districts, dedication of right-of-way,
acquisition of properties and stor`n-water management areas.
Existing Studies and Resources
If Roanoke County decides to prepare a greenway plan there are
several local related studies that have been completed or are in
progress. These studies could serve as a useful basis for the
development of a Roanoke County Greenway Plan.
There are three recent studies of the Roanoke River corridor.
First, the Roanoke River Master Plan, conducted by The River
Foundation, was completed in 1988. This plan recommended a 40-
mile linear open space system from Montgomery County to Booker T.
Washington Memorial which would include a river trail fully
separated from motorized traffic. Second, the City of Roanoke is
conducting a greenway study of the Roanoke River corridor in
conjunction with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers flood control
plan. This greenway study will address both conservation and
recreation uses. Finally, as you know, a group has been formed by
the New River Valley PDC, 5th PDC, Central Virginia PDC, and West
Piedmont PDC to study the Roanoke River corridor from its
headwaters to the Hardy Ford bridge. This study is focusing on
local implementation of land use policies and includes members from
each local government whose jurisdiction the river runs through in
~-
addition to local interest groups.
3
In addition to these studies, Roanoke County is fortunate to
currently have many resources that could be linked in a greenway
plan. For instance, the Appalachian Trail, and the Blue Ridge
Parkway traverse the County and form linear parks that could be
further linked to residential neighborhoods, existing County parks,
power line and utility easements, and other "node" areas previously
mentioned. One idea that is achieving national prominence and
popularity is the identification of existing railroad rights-of-
way which either have been or could be abandoned and converted to
recreation trails.
Sources of Information and Fundin
There are numerous sources of information and technical
assistance that staff can utilize in preparing a greenway plan.
For instance, localities such as Greensboro North Carolina, Austin
Texas, and Boulder Colorado have successfully implemented greenway
plans. In addition, there are several national organizations such
as Rails-to-Trails and Bike America which provide technical
assistance at little or no cost. The Virginia Outdoor Foundation
can provide information and assistance in developing policies for
open space easements. Contacts with these localities and
organizations could provide useful information. There are also
numerous sources of funding that could be explored. These include,
but are not limited to, the Virginia Commission on Outdoor Recrea-
tion and corporate endowments.
Respectfully submitted, Approved:
~, ~/,
Terrance L. Ha ington, AICP
Director of Planning and Zoning
Approved ( ) Motion by
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred
to
Action
~ ~~
!' 7
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
Eddy
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
Robers
Vote
No Yes Abs
SPRIIiTG
~O~/I/O rr RESERVOIR
AGENDA
SPRING HOLLOW WATER PROJECT WORKSESSION
JUNE 12, 1990
I. Project Update
A. Overall project description. John Hubbard
B. Water Reservoir John Bradshaw
II. Financial Issues
A. Total financing needs and sources Diane Hyatt
B. Financing concerns, methods of financing, Jim Johnson
and time table
III. Suggested areas of direction Elmer Hodge
~".;'~.
~`~ _ ROANOKE COUNTY
-;~~`~'.~- REGIONAL WA?ER SUPPLY
;~~~
SPRING
~'
~``
HOLLOW RESERVOIR
RESERVOIR ;
t~
' = ROANOKE COUNTY
= REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY
SPRING
HOLLOW RESERVOIR
`~~ ; ~
~~ ',.
r
~~.Q
S ~.
~ ~
,a
a~~~ ~ ~~ INTE
~~
AN ~~
39 -.s' :
~3
BM ~ ;~~ ,u
1337 - ~. d ~ i
- -
~ -.dam •;~~.
`~~
_'
, ~
'/ - ~~ '
(
~12vv ~ ~~,•- r
6l2 ~ '`
.eM .1/r'
.: ~ ~ ~ TREATMENT PLANT ~ ~~~.
~ ~.
~~ N ,o ~ ,
rsoo /~'
v~ ~ - ' --~` uarry o Q -
Si .~~ ~ rvAYlsCem L/ ~ ~3, 0~ ~~ ~ '•~
71b -i. ' _ zi av ~~ ~ ~`~~ OKE' X57 y ~ -~~ ~: _.
~G ~~ d 612
~50~ i ~ ~ ~)). °,
.~
n
ei ~ e OP ~ - ~1 y _
~ !' ~ 1 /V/
,~.-- - - - -~ - - - 3
i~ 7UrR - r: ~ - ~ ~ ~ :~
i
-- , ~~~ _ ~ sr~ _
~o ide ~ ~ ' i. :I,, ~ ~ ~ Cem
~s'Qp = ~y r ~- ~•? ,C,ood ~r~ ~' ~~ ~•~ . ~~~`1" ~~ / ~y\, p _~, 1639 O`v. -
i
p - _ 1 1 ? ~-!_ s ~ - _-M 1 1~3 . '~ ~ ~ . ~ i q~ ~ i ,%~ 1300
- ~ - ~` 639 0, ~~ ~,, ,, _ ., .
~.
,,
/ ,t ~ ~; ~~ _ ~ ~ i ~, _ _ _
I ` ~i- ~~ o
,~ xi797 -. ~ .'.I15 1~
, ~' l~ ~ !` ~~ %n'I ~ ~ ~r
1 ~ ~) I~~. - ~ f _, ~ ~~ _
1299 ~ ~ $u~ ~ ~`~~ - ,1,A~ U ° _ ~.~. ^d -.
--f •- , •~ R OAK ~~~ ~ . i ~ ~ \ ~ --~„ _ 'o `' ~ _ ~~
~ ~~ _ ~; ~ INTAKE '_ ~ _- ~ ~,
._
~ - ,. • ~ -
~ ~ (; ao,p ~ Substy '~~ ~„ _ ; ~~
}~~ ~~~.~~ ~~~ ~' i~ ~ ~ ~ a. ~..~ Cem
i1A~~ ~ "
.. r V~~~, -- .. ~ ~ ?
7" (ice .: ~ i~, ~ ~ ~ , ~" o
y ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ," o ~ cP
~ , ~?~ , ti
~~, ~ ,
(~'c _ ~n 8~ '~;_ ~I
a~ _ ~" -
~q ~~ ~ -~ ~`2 II i~ I~I r '~ ,~',9 - ,-.~.
' - ~.
= ROANOKE COUNTY
' = REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY
.'
,' 1
SPRING
HOLLOW RESERVOIR
PRELIMINARY SCHEDULE
p~E 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
DESIGN
Dam ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Treatment
Transmission System
BID AND AiTARD
Dam ~
Treatment
Transmission System
CONSTRIICTION
Dam ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~
Treatment
Transmission System
'~;~ = ROANOKE COUNTY
3 ^ i = REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY
~~~~~~ ICI ~~~~~~~ ICI ~
~~~~~o iii ~g~~~$~ iii
e~+1
H p~ ~. ... e+1 ^~ I ~ I ~ I ~ I H II
O O O O O ~ O O O O O O O O O O
8
O 8
O 8
O 8
O ~ O Vl ~ Q
ap O O ~ p
~O v0~1 try ~
00
Yl O~ ••• ••• N1 .•r ~ P1 V1 ~
H
n
O
A
o.
00
.~
a
0
v
a~
R
..
0 0Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 O ~
O
O g
O
H I C I I I H II
F z
o
y
OU
E"'
o
a
a
F
Q
3
o
a
x
c7
a
a.
~,
a
a
w
W
a
30
^~
o
~
z
a
H
~
~
O°
H
z
a
E-
W
~
F
a
~
E-
W
¢
o
E"'
~
FW-
<
3
w
x
~
?
w
W
..,
U
Q
w
z
~
A
a.
p"
~
..a
H
Ao
y
~
W
Z
z
~
y
N
zQ,
a
Er F
U
W
z
V
~
z
Ltl
z
z
o
E..,,
aAa
a
~
A
F
y
U
~
~
~
°'
~
o
[-
~
~
o
F
w
^pa
a
~
z
°
A
q
a
q
a
ti
~'
a
a~
a
w
w
a
a
z
~
~
s
z
Q
~
o
~
a
F
N
o
U
a
~
>
Aa
~a
v
zd
z
w
a
v
~
U
A
o
oa
a
w
~
a
w
z
D
F
O
w
H
O
~
o
w
~
z
F
a
o»
z
w
a
W
t~i,~
0W4
v
a
y
[--
w
A
y
~~
~
z
0
~
~
~a
o
[-
~
o
A
!n
W W
~
Z W
V z a~ Wo
Q
_ W ~o
~~ W°~
WNW Wes,
°
VSO
Zpap Qr
~ ~~
Wp~ ~ rrW~~{j3
vJ
F
- Q~
W ~ Z
O
~ W
w
'
^
v ~
W ~ r
o
~ ~ V z
CJ Q -
~
z ~ o
Zo
Q ~ for
O ~ ~rCV
to
o
~~
~ r
c
Z
V- J - a
O J -~
W
~ o o~
~- _ ~ ~ o
z
o a
~
~
° ~:
o z o
~~
-
oc W
County of Roanoke, Virginia
Spring Hollow Water Project
June 12,1990
Wheat, First Securities, Inc.
707 East Main Street
Richmond, VA 23219
(804) 649-2311
Wheat, First Securities, Inc.
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIItGINIA
SPRING HOLLOW WATER PROJECT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TAB
A
BACKGROUND
FINANCING OPTIONS B
A. GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT
B. REVENUE BONDS
CREDIT ISSUES C
A. RATING AGENCIES
B. MUNICIPAL BOND INSURERS
EXISTING COUNTY DEBT D
PROPOSED DEBT STRUCTURE E
FINANCING PARTICIPANTS F
SUGGESTED FINANCING TIMETABLE G
ALTERNATIVE FINANCING STRUCTURES H
ATTACHMENT
CREDIT RATING AGENCY INFORMATION 1
EXAMPLES OF RATE AND FEASIBILITY STUDY OPINIONS 2
Wheat, First Securities, Inc.
.: County of Roanoke
Spring Hollow ~ Virginia
Water .Project
Background
Wheat First_Seciiritic~[n
' The Count ~
and Y of Roanoke, Virginia is in the r
potential financing sfructur'es for the SP ocess of ex
cost estimates provided to amtning the overall financial feasibility
estimated to total he Coun pnng Hollow Water Pro'eCt.
$53,685 ty' he total costs of the S J Based on engineering
obtained voter a '~' These costs are described below~g Hollow Water Project are
Project. To ad PProval for the issuance of $15,Opp,000 of At this time he
dress alternative Bnancin General Obligarion Deb fotr has
$SS,Opp,pp~~ assuming that $40 g structures, we have used a total fin
~~0,000 of this amount would be issued ancing size of
The purpose of this discussion is to as Revenue Bonds.
financing for this project. Present alternatives to be considered in s
fracturing the overall
Spring Hollow Water Proj~t
Estimated Total Project Costs
Direct Project Costs;
Water Reservoir
Water Treatment Plant - 8 MGD
Finished Water Storage
pumping Facilities
Transmission Line -South Loop
Distribution Line h~nconnection
Direct project Costs
Additional Project Costs:
Construction Management
Rate and Feasibility Study
Financial Advisor
Bond Counsel
Underwriter's Costs
Contingency and Cther Costs
Debt Service Reserve Fund
Additional project Costs
Total
Pr- oLected Fundin c.,.
General "' `C
Obligation Water and
gads Sewer Revenue
Bonds
$15,000,000
$15,000,000
$18,000,000
9.000,000
1 000,000
1 ~~0,000
3,430,000
1.080000
$33,510,000
$800,000
50,000
70,000
70,000
375,000
60,000
3 750 000
$5,175 p
$15,000,000
-~ $38,685,000
__`
TTotal
$33,000,000
9.0,000
1 000,000
1 000,000
3,430,000
_1.080 000
$48,510,510 p
$800,000
50,000
70,000
70,000
375,000
60,000
3 750 000
$5,175,000
$53 685 p~pp
i
i
I '~
',
i~
i
s
s
i''
~'
~.
{'
Wheat First Securitie~Inc.
County of Roanoke, Virginia
Spring Hollow Water Project
Financing Options
~_
A• GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT
1• Represents the strongest credit for the financing issue (Aa/AA Credit Ratin
2. g),
Requires the County to obtain approval of the voters of the County;
3• This debt would require the County to provide security for this financin
would encompass its ability to levy an unlimited ad valorem ro ert g which
P P Y ~•
B• REVENUE BONDS
1• Represents a strong credit; however, not as strong as the use of the
Obligation Debt (probable A/A Credit Rating or AAA Insured Credit Rarinneral
2• Payable primarily from the revenues of the Ente ri g),
rp se Fund;
3• Use of Revenue Bonds is best designed to match the capital costs of
producing facility to the amortization of the Revenue Bond issue; a revenue
4• Requires the County's Board of Supervisors approval prior to issuance of
the debt.
Wheat First Securities, Inc.
--- ~--
County of Roanoke, Virginia
Spring Hollow Water Project
Credit Issues
In addition to the overall financial feasibility of this Project, the Credit Rating agencies and/or
the Municipal Bond Insurers will want to fully understand the financial ability of the County to
undertake this Project whether the Project is primarily funded with General Obligation Debt or
System Revenue Debt. Listed below are the areas where additional questions may be raised
depending on the type of debt selected to fund the Spring Hollow Water Project.
A. RATING AGENCIES
1. GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT
• Economic Base
• Issuer Characteristics
• Demographics
• Tax Base
• Employment Base
• Retail Sales
Financiallndicators
• Accounting and Reporting Methods
• Sources of Revenues and Uses and Expenditures
• Annual Operating Histories
• Balance Sheet History
• Budget and Financial Planning
• Pension Fund Position and Other Long-Tenn Obligations
• Debt Factors
• Type and Strength of Security Pledged
• Maturity Schedule and Life of Project
• Reliance on Short-Term Debt
• Current Debt Burden and Future Financing Needs
• Administrative Factors
• Financial Management
• Capital Improvement Program
' Property Tax Administration
Wheat First ~curities Inc.
-- ~_--
2• REVENUE BONDS
• Legal Provision
• Security Measures
• Rate Covenant
• Flow of Funds
• Additional Bonds Test
• Economic Factors
• Demographics
• Tax Base
• Employment Base
• Operating Factors
• Structure of Management
• Government Regulations
• Rate Structure and Policy
• Financial Factors
• Debt Service Coverage
Balance Sheet Indicators
• Future Trends
• Debt Service Reserve Fund
~, Wheat First Securities, Inc.
B. MUNICIPAL BOND INSURERS
1. GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT
x
Eligibility Standards
• Must be of investment ade uali
~' q ty (BBB or better).
• Property taxes must be a sufficient source of debt repayment. The County
is obligated to levy and appropriate ad valorem taxes when and as needed
to pay debt service on the bonds.
• The issuer must have the ability to issue debt within statutory or other
limits.
General Criteria
• Economic and social factors should show at least the presence of average
economic diversity, wealth and growth. Measures of the economic base
to be examined include total personal income, income per capita,
population changes, labor force characteristics, and employment and
unemployment patterns. An Insurer would prefer to insure counties
possessing growth characteristics, but will consider stable or declining
communities if the community has demonstrated the ability to manage its
financial affairs adequately in the absence of economic growth.
• Debt management should be consistent with constitutional or statutory
limits and within the financial means of the community as demonstrated
by the debt relationship to property values, economic levels and the total
revenues of the County.
• The existence of a comprehensive capital plan is preferred.
• Financial management should reflect the ongoing ability to fund operations
from available ongoing revenue sources.
Legal and administrative factors include an evaluation of political and
statutory framework within which the community exists. An unqualified
legal opinion is required.
Wheat, First Securities, Inc.
2. REVENUE BONDS
Eligibility Standards
• Must be of investment grade quality (BBB or better).
t Bonds must be secured by an ad uate
_ eq gross or net revenue pledge.
• A Debt Service Reserve Fund should be maintained at the maximum level
legally permitted.
• A rate covenant should require some level of coverage in excess of all
costs including debt service.
• An opinion(s) of the consulting engineer and rate and feasibility consultant
must state that the project is feasible, economic and necessary.
• The necessary construction and environmental permits should be in hand.
General Criteria
• Bond proceeds should fund projects which are compatible with system's
needs; project feasibility should be evaluated by independent consultants.
Bond payment must not be dependent upon timely completion of project.
The County's service territory should exhibit positive economic indicators,
the customer base should be expanding or stable, no single customer or
industry should account for a significant portion of revenues.
The County should have access to a reliable and cost effective source of
water supplies; appropriate interconnection agreements should be in place.
• There should be a history of rate adjustments being implemented on a
timely basis, rates should be competitive with those of neighboring
counties.
-- Historic financial results should demonstrate an adequate level of earnings,
coverage or existing debt should be at required levels, excess monies
should be available to fund a sufficient maintenance program.
• Financial performance should not be wholly dependent upon non-recurring
sources of revenues such as connection fees.
County of Roanoke, Virginia
Spring Hollow Water Project
Existing County Debt
Wheat, First Securities, Inc.
In examining the County's ability to repay the debt issued to fund the Spring Hollow Water Project,
outside parties will examine the County's existing debt as well as planned future debt issuances for Capital
Improvement Projects. Outside parties will also be concerned as to debt issues where the County may
have a moral obligation to pay potential shortfalls in debt service costs such as debt which may be issued
by the Roanoke County Resource Authority.
A. OUTSTANDING DEBT
1. As of June 30, 1989 the County of Roanoke, Virginia had approximately $50,000,000 of debt
outstanding. Approximately $900,000 of this debt represented Revenue Bonds with the remainder
representing General Obligation Debt.
The changes in the County's long-term liability for the year ended June 30, 1989 were as follows:
Outstanding Outstanding
June 30, 1988 Additions Deletions June 30, 1989
General Obligation Debt:
1980 public improvement bonds $3,250,000 $ -- $250,000 $3,000,000
1982 public improvement bonds 5,950,000 -- 700,000 5,250,000
1986 public improvement bonds 12,278,391 -- 565,023 11,713,368
Virginia Public School Authority
School Bonds 4,035,000 174,432 160,000 4,049,432
State literary loans 3,587,259 4,841,603 223,509 8,205,353
Capitalized lease obligations 2,327,203 2,088,934 648,433 3,767,704
Less portion of debt assumed
by other localities 60 529 174 432 25 439 2( 09,522)
31,367,324 6,930,537 2,521,526 35,776,335
Accrued employee benefits 2 617 680 275 133 -- 2 892 813
$T,~6'T6 $2 3~a
~_
~_
Enterprise Fund Debt:
Water improvement bonds $2,425,000 $ -- $250,000 $2,175,000
1980 public improvement bonds 2,825,000 -- 150,000 2,675,000
1982 public improvement bonds 2,550,000 -- 300,000 2,250,000
1986 public improvement bonds 1,846,609 -- 84,977 1,761,632
1988 Virginia Resources Authority 4,652,500 -- 127,500 4
525
000
general obligation bonds ,
,
1988 Virginia Resources Authority 950,000 -- 26,667 933
383
water revenue bonds ,
Note payable 120 000
1~,1 __
-- 40 000
/~,1 ~ 80000
1~
Accrued employee benefits 79 277 2 920 -- 82 197
P= $'~~ $9'7~
~~ $ ~3'~
i
z
W
a
a
W
U
~i
W
V1
F
oa
W
A
w
a
H
~Q
h M 00 .-r ~p o
0\ •-• M h O 0~0 ~ ~ h M ~D M h p' ~ ~D N V ^ NN
p
OI N h M 00 N ~D M ~--~ ~ O
vN~ 00 N M ~ ~A O ~ S M M ~ ~ ~ .--i .-r
~ N •--~ •-• ~ ... .-r I
t
~O ~D
N N ~
~
~
'
M
O~ '~t
•--~
~
p ~ l~ l~ ~D cr ~ ~ M M M M •--i ... .--i .r .-.. .-.
~
69
L ++ •~ •.• ~NhO~D~O ~-+ht~O~O00O N O~
~t ~ N O ~-+ •--~ C ep~ ~t
~a ~ 00 O M N [
~D V ~--~ ~ ONO c~ ~ N ~ ~ O
~
'
M O O
O
~
N
.°j
o
O
oO V~oooOOO~ONO
~
~
y
~
~~ ~
~~
0
~pp
0~~
~pp
=
[
~f
a
--~
O
~
~
h
~N
NN
~~~N
~
i -
o
i
~
h~
O001~
ti
c
•.
M
N N N ~--~ .--~ .--~ .-+ .~ ~
6R .--i
O 69
~ ~ app~pp VQ7~ t~ t~ t~ N vl V'1 1!1 h N OD N N N V'1 00 00 00 M
.
O C O N M~ V V h h~~ N N~ h~~ N h
p
U ~ ~D N O h 00 M M 0_O pp~~QQ ~Vpl
O} v) ~ N O~ t~
~
~
~
~
p
~
p
~
~ [~ ~
0
0 n 0
0 ~ O
0 O~ O G~ O~ Q~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ op
et ~t ~ N N N N N N M .--i y~
_ !n ~ O~ O l~ 00 I~ ~O ~O O l~ ~--~ pp to 00 M ~ .~ h M
'~ ~--~ C~ O p~ ~~pp f~ M N M 00 ~O M tt N -~ 00 (~ ~p
h N 00 O O c~'1 tt O
~ O
`~ ~
~ 00 h h N 00 M h
O l~ M M~ N I~ O .-i
F p~ ~~~^"nr hNNNNNM
~N
~ M
O
O
O
O
cF t+1 M O
~. ~
ff,
w
'
O O O V1 Yl h v1 1P) h h .-• N
C ~ .--i .ti .~. .--i .-i .-i .-~ .--i .-~ .-~ O
N
~ ~
69
'O ~ ~i ~ ~ ~ n N ~D t~ .--~ 00 t~ ~ V O ~O 00 N 00 00 h h
~ ~O h ~O M ~-+ ~D ~D t7 h d~ M 00 ~!1 00 V'^ M O
~DNNOOOOOM~~O~D~DM~--~ [SON.-i00N~
L ~ f~ O N M [~
-.
'
.~..~ .
1n C V
1 ~--~ Q~ ~D ~ ~--~ 00 ~ ~--~ 00
~ ~..i ~ 00 t~ ~D h V') ~ 'V M M N N .-~ .-. rr 00
.. Q C
W ~
O L ed 00 0~ M h N O h 00 M ~--~ M t~ !~ I~ M M 00
~ h ~ M O t7 00 00 V1 ~O ~ M ~O ~p ~D S M M S
--~
y y Q
v
~ ~
--~Ooot'N l'oO~Oi
~
~no0c+^~D~D~OOMMOv'~
.a ~
~
b Gs, rl
.-.
p
~
C_ ~ 00 ~pQ fN N ~qp ~ O h S .My ~D ~D V_1 00 M V~ M
~
N f~1
00 C~ ~O [~ [~ 00 M M M M 'cF ~ ~' ~ M
y
~ O L M
y
~ ~ a = d9
a a ~ y 7
y _ O~ 00 O~ 00 O N N p
~ Q C~ M M p~ 00 h ~ N ~ Y~ ~ ~ O~ ~ M QNi ~D
~ V ~--~ 00 N V1 O '
'
.
.
6.. CC it
O O ~' fit M f w ~D v
^ N ~ M O Q~ ~D o0 h
O ~Np l~ ~ M_ 1/'1 '~7 app V'1 .-r n o_O N O~ N 00 M
~
~
C~
~
~
n
~
N
~
y
y ~
RS O
o
o~o0
h~1~~ ~tc
noO
~D
~OV
'~
NO
7
:
V
I
C .-. .-. .-
c
.-r .-r .r .-+ .~ .-i .--i
M
69
(s
~ ,~
O ~ ~ w .
N
v s9
M V V ~ y ~ ~M-. ~O M f~ ~O t~ N_ ~O O 1~ ~ O~ _h N ~O ~~~pp
~ U O
Z ~ 4J w ~ V'j ~ Vl O 00 V'1 M tt ~ ~D .-r h D\ 00 O ~D N
a~ '~Y I~ M l~ O h S ~O 00 N~ M .--~ 00 h M N
~
w
O I
~
O ~
~
•
~ GJ ~ 69
~ "~'
'jZ tQ M M ~Q N t~ V7 V~ 1!~ N N .-r to 1/~ V'1 h ~A V'1 to 00 ~t
Cn ~f N 8 00 ~O (~ f~ !~ ~t '~t
l~ [~ t~ f~ [~ [~ f~ N N
y
Z
O U ~
v~ ~O ~O oo O v~ O t ~ N U1 V'~ v~ v' ~n v~ .-. N v~
.U V'1 .--i M pp ~ ~ O ~ ~ N .-. M 00 00 00 O~ tt ~D N 00
O~ t
C
~ [~
'
V U7 .
N
_
N NO V
~ 1~ Q~ N [~ V"~ N I~ M h o0 N .-.
C1~y " ~, O O O ~--~ •-. ~D ~O v'~ ~D V1 ~t ~ N l~
'-7
. LQ
•
O iA
~,,,~
G _ [~ N M ~O N N t~ M 00 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~--~
~O M~ N M N 00 M 'ct f~ ~
y O ~ h O^ [~ M O N O' 00 [~ h h ~
q ~ O t+1 ~ N Ott h~ N p O
H ~ N N ~ N ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
_ ~ M M N .-r .--i .r .--i .-i ,..i r.i O
.O
.
. ~ ~
~i yi"j yv, M~hhMO~~~pp~pOOOOOOOOO
U
'" p L N to h tt [~ 00 00 O ~~pD 00 M p
C 7 ~' ~ ~ ^' M ~t~ 0~0 N ~ Q~ ~ ~ N
C O 00 l~ In V M M N .--~ S
C/1 ~ r.r 69
~
r
~ O
O
U
Q V ~ M n N ~I'1 V1 0 V'1 V'1 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ N •-. 00 n ~ N N ~--~ ~ [~ ~ ~
y p
.U
r,v~ooc~v-~ooo~.-• ~
ti"" n M oo .--~ M
M ~p~p pp ~Qp~
M ~ ~
~
~ M
.
-w
~ -~ M Vy 00 00 O~ ~ O~ O ~ 00
N N N
.-: ._..~ ~
,--i
"'" f
o _ p
'`
l
t
M
l/'1
T
O
f~ 00 Q~ g
Q T
Q
~ Q
~ Q
Q
p
gg
Q
~
p
~
p
~
p
~
p
p
p
p
p
~+I ~~0~~~~~~~ N
G
SSS~S~
L
O
SS
^' ^' ^' --~ ~--~ --~ O~ N N N N N N N N N
Wheat, First Securities, Inc.
C. ISSUANCE OF ADDITIONAL DEBT ASSUMING CONTINUATION OF EXISTING $2
MILLION OF ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS
County of Roanoke, Virginia
Spring Hollow Water Project
Fiscal
Year
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Existing
Debt Service
Changed to
Enterprise
Funds
$1,997,255
1,983,106
1,983,519
1,974,290
1,412,807
1,377,098
1,370,067
1,061,376
1,066,436
1,066,050
1,057,437
526,781
527,968
528,835
527,548
527,523
530,211
531,881
117,375
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$20,2_
Debt
Service
Available
for
New Bonds
0
0
0
0
$600,173
600,349
601,831
999,593
1,005,089
1,003,181
1,004,846
1,500,925
1,499,859
1,500,066
1,499,859
1,498,394
1,499,623
1,499,140
1,899,624
1,997,147
2,002,536
2,000,569
2,004,681
2,004,260
2,001,641
2,000,503
2,000,958
2,001,763
_2,003,471
$38,229,941
New Total
Debt Service
$1,977,255
1,983,106
1,983,519
1,974,290
2,012,980
1,978,929
1,971,898
2,060,969
2,071,525
2,069,231
2,062,283
2,027,706
2,027,827
2,028,901
2,027,407
2,025,917
2,029,834
2,031,021
2,016,999
1,997,147
2,002,536
2,000,569
2,004,681
2,004,260
2,001,641
2,000,503
2,000,958
2,001,763
2,003,471
$58,457,504
Amount of Debt which could be issued
under this Debt Service Schedule 11 372 000
Wheat, First Securities, Inc.
County of Roanoke, Virginia
Spring Hollow Water Project
Proposed Debt Structure
The County has obtained voter approval for issuing approximately $15,000,000 of General
Obligation Bonds to fund a portion of this Project. An additional $40,000,000 of funds will be
needed to fully fund this Project as presently designed.
We are recommending that the County consider the following financing options to determine the
most efficient overall financing plan for the Spring Hollow Water Project. These
recommendations are based on information which we have reviewed todate and will be
continually refined and changed, as needed, based on the results of the studies to be conducted
by the Rate and Feasibility Consultant and other members of Financing Team.
1. The County should establish water and sewage rates which would be sufficient to
pay all operations and maintenance expenses and all System Debt Service Costs.
To assist the County in establishing these rates, we believe a Rate and Feasibility
Consultant should be retained to review the ability of the County to support its
existing debt, this proposed debt issuance and support all future CIP projects.
2. Issue $15,000,000 of General Obligation Bonds to support the Spring Hollow
Water Project. These Bonds should be rated as Aa/AA reflecting the overall
credit strength of the County. We would not, at this time, recommend that the
County seek Municipal Bond Insurance on this portion of the Debt.
3. Issue up to $40,000,000 of Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds to support the Spring
Hollow Water Project. These Bonds, assuming adequate water and sewer rates,
should be rated as an A/A obligation. We would recommend that the County
pursue Municipal Bond Insurance for this issue while continuing to pursue the
VRA as a possible financing vehicle.
4. The Revenue Bonds will receive a net pledge of the Water and Sewer Revenues.
A suggested flow of funds for this transaction is attached.
5. The County would issue Revenue Bonds sufficient to fully fund a Debt Service
Reserve Fund. In addition, the County will agree to replenish any draw downs
on this Reserve Fund within six months of the draw. This replenishment would
be subject to annual appropriation by the County Board of Supervisors.
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
WATER AND SEWER REVENUE BONDS
SUGGESTED FLOW OF FUNDS
NTIAL FEES
'sRCIAL FEES SYSTEM
Y APPROPRIATIONS REVENUES
MUNICIPALITIES
OPERATING AND
MAINTENANCE
EXPENSES
DEBT SERVICE DEBT SERVICE ON
RESERVE FUND REVENUE BONDS
COUNTY TRANSFERS I DEBT SERVICE ON
TO SUPPORT DEBT OTHER BONDS
BALANCE TO
ENTERPRISE FUND
Wheat, First Sc-curitieszlnc.
County of Roanoke, Virginia
Spring Hollow Water Project
Financing Participants
As part of the overall Financing Plan for the Spring Hollow Water Project, the following groups
and/or fu-ms would be major participants in the overall successful issuance of the General
Obligation and Revenue System Bonds. Each participants' role in the financing process is briefly
described below.
Issuer
The Boazd of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia will be the issuer of the Bonds.
The Boazd of Supervisors will be required to approve the issue of the Bonds and the County Staff
will be actively involved in the development of the financing plan.
General Counsel
The County Attorney will serve as the legal representative to the County Administrator and
Boazd of Supervisors in legal matters relating to the issuance of the debt.
Rate and Feasibility Consultant
The Rate and Feasibility Consultant is responsible for determining the County's Water and Sewer
rates needed to pay the operating and maintenance cost of the system as well as the required debt
service cost. The Rate and Feasibility Consultant will determine the level of increase, if any, in
the Water and Sewer rates for existing residential and commercial customers in addition to
determining an appropriate level of connection fees for new system users. This work will include
the use of sensitivity analysis on the overall systems ability to meet expenses under different
growth assumptions. A copy of two Rate and Feasibility Study Opinions are shown in
Attachment 2.
Consulting Engineers
The Consulting Engineers are primarily responsible for the technical engineering consulting
aspects of the Spring Hollow Water Project. This group will work with the other team members
to ensure that accurate cost estimates are used in determining the overall financing plan.
Bond Counsel
Bond Counsel is responsible for assisting the County in issuing its debt as well as protecting the
interests of the bondholders "at large". Bond counsel is responsible for structuring the legal
documents supporting the financing and for providing the legal opinion that the bonds are issued
in conformance with Federal and state law regazding the issuance of tax-exempt bonds and that
the interest income is exempt from Federal, state and any local income tax.
Wheat First Securities~lnr.
Financial Advisor
The Financial Advisor will assist the County in the development of a financing structure which
meets the Counry's objectives and satisfies all legal requirements. The Financial Advisor will
also provide the County with guidance in selecting an Underwriter to market the bonds. As part
of this process, the Financial Advisor will be responsible for coordinating the efforts of the
working group in order to provide the County with the lowest cost financing.
Underwriter
The Underwriter will be responsible for the sale of the County's bonds. This group takes on an
added importance with the use of CAB's, OID's or other special marketing structures to obtain
a lower debt service cost in the early years.
Underwriter's Counsel
Underwriter's Counsel represents the underwriters in the financing transaction and is primarily
responsible for preparing the Preliminary Official Statement (POS) and the Official Statement
(OS), as well as other underwriting documents. Underwriter's Counsel also acts as the
Underwriter's legal advisor in the Underwriter's efforts to market the bonds. The POS and OS
are legal information documents used to market the bonds prior to the sale date. Underwriter's
Counsel is responsible for evaluating the POS and OS in terms of the adequate disclosure of
relevant information and ensuring the accuracy of the representations made in the POS and OS.
Trustee
The trustee is responsible for collecting, investing and distributing funds associated with the bond
issue in accordance with the legal provisions of the financing.
Rating Agencies
The rating agencies review the financing to determine the credit status of the facility and the
bondholder's potential to receive full debt service payments in a timely manner in accordance
with the terms of the legal documents. The bond rating determined by either Standard & Poor's
Corporation or Moody's Investors Service, Inc. will be an important factor in the interest rate
expected by tax-exempt bond buyers on the financing. A brief description of the rating process
and the meanings of the ratings are shown in Attachment 1.
Credit Enhancement Providers
Depending upon the credit strength and/or complexity of the anticipated financing, credit
enhancement may be an economically beneficial addition to the financing. The credit guarantee
would most likely be in the form of municipal bond insurance. Under the terms of a bond
insurance policy, the insurance company guarantees the full and timely payment of debt service
on the bonds in return for an upfront insurance premium payment. As a result of the insurance
company's guarantee, the bonds bear the long-term credit rating of the insurance company
Wheat, First ~curitie_s Inc.
-1---
(generally "AAA") thereby bearing a lower interest rate than if the bonds were sold on a stand-
alone basis. Bond insurance is deemed economically feasible if the insurance premium is less
than the present value interest cost savings resulting from the improved credit rating.
Wheat First Sc curities, Inc.
County of Roanoke, Virginia
Spring Hollow Water Project
Suggested Financing Timetable
(For Discussion Purposes Only)
June 12, 1990
ParticiQants
BS Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
CS Roanoke County Staff
CE Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern (Consulting Engineer)
FA Wheat, First Securities, Inc. (Financial Advisor)
BC McGuire Woods Battle & Boothe (Bond Counsel and General Counsel)
FC Rate and Feasibility Consultant (To Be Named)
UW Underwriter (To be Named)
UC Underwriter's Counsel
TR Trustee (To Be Named)
Date
6/12/90
6/18/90
6/22/90
7/10/90
7/16/90
7/23/90
Week of
7/23/90
Event
Tuesday Briefing Meeting for County Supervisors.
Monday Continue discussion with VRA on financing
options.
Friday Issue Request for Proposals for Rate and
Feasibility Consultants.
Tuesday Rate and Feasibility Consultant proposals due.
Monday Rate and Feasibility Consultant selected.
Monday Present proposed financing plan to County
Administrator for review.
-- Working Group Meeting with Rate and
Feasibility Consultant to begin their
independent evaluation.
Partiapants
All Parties
FA, CS
FA, CS
FA, CS
CS, BS
FA
FA, CS,
CE, BC
Wheat, First Securities Inc.
--~
Date Day Event p~Q~~
October -- Board Meeting to include an update and FC, CS,
preliminary approval on the Project and approval FA, CE
of Request for Proposal for Underwriters.
11/1/90 Thursday Issue Request for Proposal for Underwriters FA, CS
11/15/90 Thursday Underwriters proposals due to County -_
11/30/90 Friday Select underwriting team. CSBS
Month of -- 1. Draft Feasibility Study for financing in FC
December, 1990 circulation for review;
2. Initiate development of bond documents; BC
3. Continue discussions with bond insurers. BC, CS,
Arrange meetings in Roanoke County; FA, UW
4. Continue discussion with VRA (as CS
necessary); and
5. Initiate discussions with rating agencies, CS, FA, UW
if applicable.
6. Adoption of County's Capital Improvement CS, BS
Plan.
January, 1991 -- Board meeting to include a progress report
on the financing structure and continue
discussion on preliminary findings on the
feasibility study and ramifications on the current
and proposed rates.
Board approval of Request for Construction Bids CS, CE
Month of -- Working group meetings to assemble necessary All Parties
February, 1991 documentation for Bond Sale.
Months of -- Selected Events:
February &
March, 1991 1. Finalize feasibility study; FC
Wheat, First Sc;curities, Inc.
Date Dav Event particiaants
Months of 2. Submit draft of bond documents to BC, UC
February & appropriate financial parties (e.g. bond
March, 1991 insurers, rating agencies, VRA); and
3. Select ancillary parties to the CS, FA, BS
transaction (e.g. bond trustee)
3/15/91 Friday Receipt of Construction Bids CS, CE
4/9/91 Tuesday Tentative Bond Sale ~~ Fp, UW
April, 1991 -- Board Meeting to authorize the entering into CS, FA, UW
a Bond Purchase Agreement.
Week of -- (Tentative) Close on the transaction; location All Parties
4/23/91 to be determined.
t/~ V'1 V7 In ~ V7 V') V'~ V~ ~ V'1 V7 V~ ~ V7 V~ h H h to H V'f V'f L/'1 V'1 ~A ~ O M M
v> vy v~ ~n ~n v~ ~n ~n ~n ~n v~ v7 ~n ~n ~/'~ ~n ~n v~ v~ ~n ~n oo rt O '--~ ~ ~t N ~n ~
O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 et t ~--~ pp~~~ O~ ~ [~~~}} oo pM~~
~~~~ '~t ~ OV ~~~ M M M OM M M O O O M O~ 0 0 0~ 0 0 0 0
oN v et ~ v ~ v ~ ~t ~r ~ t~ t~ t ^ t ^ t w t~ ~ n ~ t~ oo ao 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
MGR M M M M M M M M M V1 V7 lA V') lI~ V'1 ~ In l/') 1/') ~p ~p ~p \p ~p \p ~p ~p ~p \p
Do M DD oo M M oo OO ~ O oo ~ ~ OO O~ 00 O OO [~ OO O ~A O M OO O N M
~O N~ ^' et ~ ct ~ O~ ~O M M M M M M~ M M M S M ~-+ N M N S f~ ~t
M O~ N N t~ ~t N [~ 00 O O O O O O O O O O~~ ~--~ ~ 00 ~D ~--~ 00 ~ M
O oo O O~ O o~ O [~ N [~ V~ V7 ~ O O O O O O O V'1 tI'i O~ ~D vi •-+ M f~1 N a0
001 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O O O O O O O O O
Ncf3 N N N N N N N N N ~O ~O ~O ~D ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O ~D [~ (~ [~ [~ [~ [~ f~ [~ t~ [~
N O V7 V'1 O O ~A ~ M 00 00 00 M 00 OO M o0 M M tP1 V7 O~ M O M U1 M 00
~ ^~ V O M M M M 00 N [~ ~ ~A lP1 U1 t~ O O ~ ~ ~ 00 t~ (~ et l/7 t~ d'
V1 ~ ~t et O~ ~O et O^ M O N ~ OO of O~ ~ O O~ N ~O et ~O O^ ~-+ O O^ O ~O O
~--~ O ^~ O ~--+ O ~--~ oD M O~ ~G of [~ ~ p~ rj O O O N N N M '-+ M M M O~ M~
^' •°" ^-~ ~~ ^+ ^' O ^' N N N N ^" N N N N N N N N N N N N ~-+
~I M M M M M M M M M M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
~ M M M M M M M M M ~O ~D ~O ~O ~O ~D ~O ~O ~O ~p ~O ~p ~p ~p ~p ~p ~p ~p ~p ~p
~ M o0 a0 M M a0 00 t/') pp DD O~ O~ 00 Q~ OO O o0 C~ OO O V~ O M 00 O ~ M
A N N "" ~t d' V~~ ~D M M M M M M~ M M M S M ^~ N M N S (~ '~7
M C. N N [~ V' N l~ -. 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~--~ --~ et OO ~O ~-+ OO 1A M
O OO O C, O H O t~ N [~ O O O t/1 0 0 0 0 0 0 V'1 ~ d' ~O ~ ~+ M M N 00
~I rn ~ ~ ~ ~ n r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ H ~ ~ H ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a
rl N N N N <•f 't s7 ~ ~ ~ V-y U7 V'1 ~!1 ~ ~I i V'~ ~ ~A ~ V`1 V'1 h ~/'f ~ v'f V7 ~A N
6R
N O H V'1 O O V'1 ~ M o0 00 00 M 00 00 M 00 M M V'f to O V'f M O M 1A M pp 00
~ .~ ~h O M
' ' M M M OO eh N [~ d' N V'f V1 t~ O O ~ •--~ .-~ 00 t~ t~ et 1A t~ ~G et
w ~ ^" ~
r! O^ ~O V O^ M O N '-. 00 ~ Q~ er O O~ N ~D d' ~D O~ •-+ O O^ O ~O O t
yti ~-+
,~ O
•r ~--~ O -+
•~ ,~• •-• ~n
~O ~--~
~O oo
N M O~
~O V -~ O~ N
~O V
~O ~O O~ M
~D Q O O N N N oo ri M M M O~ M~
U y~l
M
M
M
--i 1 ~ V~ ~O `o ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O V1 ~O ~O ~O ~D N ~O ~O
r
7 M M ~ .-. .--i .-+ .--~ .~ ~-r ~-. .r ~--~ .-. ~--i .-~ ~ .-r .--i .-i ..~ .~ .-r .-r .r ~--i ~--~ .-+
"JJ
t/1 ~ M M M M t/') V'1 ~ V1 to Vy ~ t/) N V7 tIy ~A ~A V'1 V'1 V'1 ~A V'f V'f ~ V1 ~A Vy to to
0
M
H M
Vy M M M
vi v1 ~n M
~n M
~n M
V'1 M
~n M
Vy M
v~ M M
O O~ 00
~ M O
O~ ~O O O
N 'ct 00
N 00
[~ 00 M 00
N
~ M 00 00 V'1 O M
N
N
N N N
N
N
N
N
N
N
~
~
t~
O
M
~
00
00
~
e}' N
t~ n
~--~ ~ oo
O ~-+
M ~
0~0
~
0~0 OHO OHO OHO OHO OHO 0~0 ONO OHO OHO p
~O ~ ~O N Q
S Q
~ l O1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~I V1 vy V'f ~/y ~ V'f v~ v~ h V1 ..r .-, .--i .~ .--i .-w A
~--i ..r .--~ ..~ In
~ ~--~ .r ~A
.--~ .-~ ao 00 00 00 00
M M M M M M M M M M ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O ~D ~p ~p ~p ~p ~p ~p ~p ~p M M M M M
Ef3
U
~'
V~
~ O
N lI~ ~ O
~ ~ ~ O
~ l/1
~ ~
~ M
~ o0
~ ~O
M ~O
M ~
M to
M [~
M ~O
M O
~ ~--~
~ N
V 00 O
` O V7 O M 00 v'f
S 00 M
V]
~O
N
V7 h O
C~
V1
O
~
.--i
M 1 ~ [ pp~~ N 00 ~ 00 et OO `ct
M M M M M M 1P) 00 O~ ~ O [~ N ~O M 00 l~ ~ [~
^-~ O --~ O N O -~
~
N
~
\O
`D ~ ~O t~ V7 to t~ ~-+ •-~ O O~ O 00 O •--~
h
N
Q MI N N N N N N N n ~ ~ ~ n t~ [~ l~ O~ O~ O~ 00 O~ oo O~ O~ o
o o
o
O~ O^ O^ O^ O^ O^ O~ O~ O^ O~ N N N N N N N N N N ~O ~O ~O ~D ~O ~D ~O ~O ~O ~p
MfA M M M M M M M M M 1/') 1n l/') V'1 V1 l/~ 1/y V1 Vj yj lrj !/y vi vi h v~ Vj vi v'1 ~
O
F` G
w
O ~ M
~ 00
•--~ M M 00
~ ~--~ M 00
M M
et M
~ O
O~ ~A
V) M
c'1 'rl'
M ~
M M
M ~
M M V7 M N M V'1 1n O V7 00 M V'f 8 Q 0
[~
M
~D ~O ~-+
00
~
..,
tI'1
N
~
~
c}'
~
~ M
'~7 M
et M
'at M
e! M
~ M
of
O [~
O N
M M
M ~+
O
~ O
t `~
~
~ ~
~ p MM p MM Vp~ ppM ~
0 pN ~O
0 Np ~
•-. ~t
--~ 'ct
--~ ~
-, el ~ of ~ `el ~ t~ ~
N ~C ~A ^
~ S ~
O ~ ~
y a> NI O O O O O 0
O 0
O 0
OO ,
00 .
00 ,
00 .-r
00 r..
00 .r
OO ~
00 .-i
Op .-•
p 0 0 0 0 O~
A ~
~ O M M M M M N M M N N
j Lr 6~9 'ct ~ 'ct ~ ~' 'cJ' ~ '~t ~ ~f !F ~ '~! ~ et ~ ~ of ~O ~O ~O ~O ~D ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O
r C
O i
~,
raj ~
~' 3
D
~ •=A
p ~
~ H
~ O
~--~ ~ h O
M O ~--~ tI')
OO O
O O
V~ M
(~ 00
M M
N 00
M V~
M O
t/ M
~p 0 0
-- 0 ~ 1I') V1 O h M O M 1/y M O 00
,.
~
~
M N ~O
l~
~O
N
o0 ~
'
~ •
~ ~-. OO p~ ~-. .-~ 00 [~ [~ 'c!' ~A l~ ~
Q b
O
M
O~
~t
~O
e}
M
00
00
O~
~
~D
O^
.-r
O
O^ O
~O
O I ^
~"
~ G
~ ~D l~ 00 ~ l~ ~ ~D I~ ~O V1 ~O ~ O ~O M ~ ~ V'1 [~ ~O N N 00 .--~ M M M p~ M ^'~
~ ~
( N N N N N N N N N N N N M N N M N N N N ~ ~--~ O ~ ~--~ ~ -~ O ~-+ ~
~" ~"
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t~ l~ I~ I~ l~ [~ I~ l'~ [~ l~ [~ M M M M M M M M M M
3 y cy
v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~* ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ v M M M M M M M M M M
o c~ 3
o
0
~
.~ .: ~ N M ~ Vl ~D t~ 00 O~ O ~--~ N M ~ ~A ~O [~ 00 p~ O ~-+ N M ~ V7 ~O (` 00 Q~ O ^~
op
~
fir' O~
~ O~
~ O~ ~ O~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ O~
~ O~
~ O
~ O
~ O
~ O
~ O
~ O
~ O
~ O
~ O
~ O
~ •~
~ .-+
~ .--~
~ .-.
~ ~
~ '-.
~ .--~
~ .-i ...~
~ ~ .--~
~ N N
~
'~
~
O
~
O
O
O O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0 0
0 ~
0 0
~ 49 e
~
V A O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O
O O O
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
Spring Ho llow Water Project Comparative Debt Service
$15 Million General Obligation Debt
$40 Million Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds
Structure 1: Structure 2:
30 Yr Rev 30 Yr GO 30 Yr Rev
(Ser 1-15, (Int only 1=20, (Ser 1-10,
20 Yr GO 20 & 30 25 & 30 CABs 11-20,
Date (Ser 1-20) Yr Terms) Total Yr Terms 25 & 30 Terms) Total
07/01/92 $1,414,990 $3,311,555 $4,726,545 $1,084,395 $2,920,368 $4,004,763
07/01/93 1,417,000 3,310,110 4,727,110 1,084,395 2,918,923 4,003,318
07/01/94 1,416,890 3,311,445 4,728,335 1,084,395 2,920,258 4,004,653
07/01/95 1,414,800 3,310,405 4,725,205 1,084,395 2,919,218 4,003,613
07/01/96 1,415,680 3,311,930 4,727,610 1,084,395 2,920,743 4,005,138
07/01/97 1,414,155 3,310,630 4,724,785 1,084,395 2,919,443 4,003,838
07/01/98 1,415,165 3,311,435 4,726,600 1,084,395 2,920,248 4,004,643
07/01/99 1,418,315 3,308,935 4,727,250 1,084,395 2,917,748 4,002,143
07/01/00 1,413,490 3,313,383 4,726,873 1,084,395 2,922,195 4,006,590
07/01/01 1,415,990 3,309,048 4,725,038 1,084,395 2,917,860 4,002,255
07/01/02 1,415,095 3,311,228 4,726,323 1,084,395 3,730,038 4,814,433
07/01/03 1,415,760 3,309,178 4,724,938 1,084,395 3,730,039 4,814,434
07/01/04 1,417,593 3,312,843 4,730,435 1,084,395 3,730,039 4,814,434
07/01/05 1,415,193 3,311,458 4,726,650 1,084,395 3,730,038 4,814,433
07/01/06 1,413,505 3,309,958 4,723,463 1,084,395 3,730,039 4,814,434
07/01/07 1,417,588 3,313,453 4,731,040 1,084,395 3,730,038 4,814,433
07/01/08 1,416,233 3,310,078 4,726,310 1,084,395 3,730,040 4,814,435
07/01/09 1,414,908 3,310,903 4,725,810 1,084,395 3,730,038 4,814,433
07/01/10 1,417,683 3,310,203 4,727,885 1,084,395 3,730,037 4,814,432
07/O1/11 1,414,380 3,312,615 4,726,995 1,084,395 3,730,038 4,814,433
07/01/12 3,312,415 3,312,415 2,159,395 4,145,040 6,304,435
07/01/13 3,312,610 3,312,610 2,161,995 4,145,100 6,307,095
07/01/14 3,308,985 3,308,985 2,158,835 4,144,135 6,302,970
07/01/15 3,311,173 3,311,173 2,159,915 4,146,410 6,306,325
07/01/16 3,313,070 3,313,070 2,159,515 4,145,823 6,305,338
07/01/17 3,313,943 3,313,943 2,157,275 4,141,638 6,298,913
07!01/18 3,313,055 3,313,055 2,157,075 4,143,120 6,300,195
07/01/19 3,309,673 3,309,673 2,158,900 4,143,800 6,302,700
07/01/20 3,313,060 3,313,060 2,157,025 4,142,575 6,299,600
07/01/21 3,311,748 3,311,748 2,161,088 4,138,343 6,299,430
TOTAL $28,314,410 $99,340,518 $127,654,928 $43,278,918 $107,933,368 $151,212,286
Payment Source:
Continuing Fees
Connection Fees
Contribution by County
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
'Spring Ho llow Water Projec t Comparative Debt Service
$15 Million General Obligation Debt
$40 Million Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds
Structure 3: Structure 4:
30 Yr GO
(Int only 1-10, 30 Yr Rev 25 Yr GO 30 Yr Rev
CABs 11-15, (Ser 1-10, (Int only 1-10, (Int only 1-10, ',
20,25 & 30 CABs 11-20, CABs 11-20, Ser 11-20,
Date Yr Terms) 25 & 30 Terms) Total 25 Yr Term) 25 & 30 Terms) Total
07/01/92 $1,001,298 $2,920,368 $3,921,665 $673,920 $2,911,333 $3,585,253
07/01/93 1,001,298 2,918,923 3,920,220 673,920 2,911,333 3,585,253
07/01/94 1,001,298 2,920,258 3,921,555 673,920 2,911,333 3,585,253
07/01/95 1,001,298 2,919,218 3,920,515 673,920 2,911,333 3,585,253
07/01/96 1,001,298 2,920,743 3,922,040 673,920 2,911,333 3,585,253
07/01/97 1,001,298 2,919,443 3,920,740 673,920 2,911,333 3,585,253
07/01/98 1,001,298 2,920,248 3,921,545 673,920 2,911,333 3,585,253
07/01/99 1,001,298 2,917,748 3,919,045 673,920 2,911,333 3,585,253
07/01/00 1,001,298 2,922,195 3,923,493 673,920 2,911,333 3,585,253
07/01/01 1,001,298 2,917,860 3,919,158 673,920 2,911,333 3,585,253
07/01/02 1,546,298 3,730,038 5,276,336 2,293,920 3,866,333 6,160,253
07/01/03 1,546,298 3,730,039 5,276,336 2,298,920 3,864,483 6,163,403
07/01/04 1,541,298 3,730,039 5,271,337 2,293,920 3,867,573 6,161,493
07/01/05 1,541,298 3,730,038 5,271,335 2,293,920 3,864,828 6,158,748
07/01/06 1,541,298 3,730,039 5,271,337 2,293,920 3,866,173 6,160,093
07/01/07 1,546,298 3,730,038 5,276,336 2,293,920 3,866,440 6,160,360
07/01/08 1,547,330 3,730,040 5,277,370 2,293,920 3,864,600 6,158,520
07/01/09 1,545,503 3,730,038 5,275,541 2,293,920 3,865,920 6,159,840
07/01/10 1,545,815 3,730,037 5,275,852 2,293,920 3,868,908 6,162,828
07/01/11 1,547,910 3,730,038 5,277,948 2,293,920 3,868,558 6,162,478
07/01/12 1,546,430 4,145,040 5,691,470 2,293,920 3,864,508 6,158,428
07/01/13 1,545,990 4,145,100 5,691,090 2,297,280 3,865,443 6,162,723
07/01/14 1,546,590 4,144,135 5,690,725 2,297,000 3,866,158 6,163,158
07/01/15 1,542,870 4,146,410 5,689,280 2,292,720 3,865,923 6,158,643 ''
07/01/16 1,544,830 4,145,823 5,690,653 2,294,080 3,869,008 6,163,088
07/01/17 1,546,750 4,141,638 5,688,388 3,869,318 3,869,318
07/01/18 1,547,725 4,143,120 5,690,845 3,864,765 3,864,765
07/01/19 1,547,900 4,143,800 5,691,700 3,865,880 3,865,880
07/01/20 1,546,913 4,142,575 5,689,488 3,866,193 3,866,193
07/01/21 1,544,400 4,138,343 5,682,743 3,864,600 3,864,600
TOTAL $40,922,715 $107,933,368 $148,856,083 $41,158,400 $106,438,930 $147,597,330
Payment Source:
Continuing Fees
Connection Fees
Contribution by County
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VII2GINIA >
GSpring' Hollow Water ProjectComparative Debf Service
$l5 Million General Obligation Debt
$40 Million Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds°
Structure 5: Structure 6:
30 Yr Rev 30 Yr Rev
(Ser 1-15, (Ser 1-10,
30 Yr GO 20 & 30 30 Yr GO CABs 11-20,
Date (CABs 6-30) Yr Terms Total (CABs 6-30) 25 & 30 Terms) Total
07/01/92 $3,311,555 $3,311,555 $2,920,368 $2,920,368
07/01/93 3,310,110 3,310,110 2,918,923 2,918,923
07/01/94 3,311,445 3,311,445 2,920,258 2,920,258
07/01/95 3,310,405 3,310,405 2,919,218 2,919,218
07/01/96 3,311,930 3,311,930 2,920,743 2,920,743
07/01/97 $1,855,000 3,310,630 5,165,630 $1,855,000 2,919,443 4,774,443
07/01/98 1,850,000 3,311,435 5,161,435 1,850,000 2,920,248 4,770,248
07/01/99 1,850,000 3,308,935 5,158,935 1,850,000 2,917,748 4,767,748
07/01/00 1,850,000 3,313,383 5,163,383 1,850,000 2,922,195 4,772,195
07/01/01 1,850,000 3,309,048 5,159,048 1,850,000 2,917,860 4,767,860
07/01/02 1,850,000 3,311,228 5,161,228 1,850,000 3,730,038 5,580,038
07/01/03 1,850,000 3,309,178 5,159,178 1,850,000 3,730,039 5,580,039
07/01/04 1,850,000 3,312,843 5,162,843 1,850,000 3,730,039 5,580,039
07/01/05 1,855,000 3,311,458 5,166,458 1,855,000 3,730,038 5,585,038
07/01/06 1,850,000 3,309,958 5,159,958 1,850,000 3,730,039 5,580,039
07/01/07 1,850,000 3,313,453 5,163,453 1,850,000 3,730,038 5,580,038
07/01/08 1,850,000 3,310,078 5,160,078 1,850,000 3,730,040 5,580,040
07/01/09 1,850,000 3,310,903 5,160,903 1,850,000 3,730,038 5,580,038
07/01/10 1,850,000 3,310,203 5,160,203 1,850,000 3,730,037 5,580,037
07/O1/11 1,850,000 3,312,615 5,162,615 1,850,000 3,730,038 5,580,038
07/01/12 1,850,000 3,312,415 5,162,415 1,850,000 4,145,040 5,995,040
07/01/13 1,850,000 3,312,610 5,162,610 1,850,000 4,145,100 5,995,100
07/01/14 1,850,000 3,308,985 5,158,985 1,850,000 4,144,135 5,994,135
07/01/15 1,850,000 3,311,173 5,161,173 1,850,000 4,146,410 5,996,410
07/01/16 1,850,000 3,313,070 5,163,070 1,850,000 4,145,823 5,995,823
07/01/17 1,850,000 3,313,943 5,163,943 1,850,000 4,141,638 5,991,638
07/01/18 1,850,000 3,313,055 5,163,055 1,850,000 4,143,120 5,993,120
07/01/19 1,850,000 3,309,673 5,159,673 1,850,000 4,143,800 5,993,800
07/01/20 1,850,000 3,313,060 5,163,060 1,850,000 4,142,575 5,992,575
07/01/21 1,850,000 3,311,748 5,161,748 1,850,000 4,138,343 5,988,343
TOTAL $46,260,000 $99,340,518 $145,600,518 $46,260,000 $107,933,368 $154,193,368
Payment Source:
Continuing Fees
Connection Fees
Contribution by County
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIItGIIVIA
Spring Holl ow Water. Project Comparative Debt Service
$15 Million General Obligation Debt
$40 Million Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds
Structure 7: Structure 8:
30 Yr Rev 30 Yr Rev
(Ser 1-15, (Ser 1-10,
30 Yr GO 20 & 30 30 Yr GO CABs 11-20,
Date (CABs 11-30) Yr Terms) Total (CABs 11-30) 25 & 30 Terms) Total
07/01/92 $3,311,555 $3,311,555 $2,920,368 $2,920,368
07/01/93 3,310,110 3,310,110 2,918,923 2,918,923
07/01/94 3,311,445 3,311,445 2,920,258 2,920,258
07/01/95 3,310,405 3,310,405 2,919,218 2,919,218
07/01/96 3,311,930 3,311,930 2,920,743 2,920,743
07/01/97 3,310,630 3,310,630 2,919,443 2,919,443
07/01/98 3,311,435 3,311,435 2,920,248 2,920,248
07/01/99 3,308,935 3,308,935 2,917,748 2,917,748
07/01/00 3,313,383 3,313,383 2,922,195 2,922,195
07/01/01 3,309,048 3,309,048 2,917,860 2,917,860
07/01/02 $2,915,000 3,311,228 6,226,228 $2,915,000 3,730,038 6,645,038
07/01/03 2,915,000 3,309,178 6,224,178 2,915,000 3,730,039 6,645,039
07/01/04 2,915,000 3,312,843 6,227,843 2,915,000 3,730,039 6,645,039
07/01/05 2,910,000 3,311,458 6,221,458 2,910,000 3,730,038 6,640,038
07/01/06 2,910,000 3,309,958 6,219,958 2,910,000 3,730,039 6,640,039
07/01/07 2,910,000 3,313,453 6,223,453 2,910,000 3,730,038 6,640,038
07/01/08 2,910,000 3,310,078 6,220,078 2,910,000 3,730,040 6,640,040
07/01/09 2,910,000 3,310,903 6,220,903 2,910,000 3,730,038 6,640,038
07/01/10 2,910,000 3,310,203 6,220,203 2,910,000 3,730,037 6,640,037
07/01/11 2,910,000 3,312,615 6,222,615 2,910,000 3,730,038 6,640,038
07/01/12 2,910,000 3,312,415 6,222,415 2,910,000 4,145,040 7,055,040
07/01/13 2,910,000 3,312,610 6,222,610 2,910,000 4,145,100 7,055,100
07/01/14 2,915,000 3,308,985 6,223,985 2,915,000 4,144,135 7,059,135
07/01/15 2,910,000 3,311,173 6,221,173 2,910,000 4,146,410 7,056,410
07/01/16 2,910,000 3,313,070 6,223,070 2,910,000 4,145,823 7,055,823
07/01/17 2,910,000 3,313,943 6,223,943 2,910,000 4,141,638 7,051,638
07/01/18 2,910,000 3,313,055 6,223,055 2,910,000 4,143,120 7,053,120
07/01/19 2,910,000 3,309,673 6,219,673 2,910,000 4,143,800 7,053,800
07/01/20 2,910,000 3,313,060 6,223,060 2,910,000 4,142,575 7,052,575
07/01/21 2,910,000 3,311,748 6,221,748 2,910,000 4,138,343 7,048,343
TOTAL $58,220,000 $99,340,518 $157,560,518 $58,220,000 $107,933,368 $166,153,368
Payment Source:
Continuing Fees
Connection Fees
Contribution by County
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
Spring Hollow. Water Project Comparative Debt Service
$15 Millio n General Obligation Debt'
$40 Millio n Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds
Structure 9-
30 Yr Rev
30 Yr GO (Int only 1-10,
(Int only 1-20, CABs 11-20,
Date 25 & 30 Terms) 25 & 30 Terms) Total
07/01/92 $1,084,395 $2,355,660 $3,440,055
07/01/93 1,084,395 2,355,660 3,440,055
07/01/94 1,084,395 2,355,660 3,440,055
07/01/95 1,084,395 2,355,660 3,440,055
07/01/96 1,084,395 2,355,660 3,440,055
07/01/97 1,084,395 2,355,660 3,440,055
07/01/98 1,084,395 2,355,660 3,440,055
07/01/99 1,084,395 2,355,660 3,440,055
07/01/00 1,084,395 2,355,660 3,440,055
07/01/01 1,084,395 2,355,660 3,440,055
07/01/02 1,084,395 4,650,660 5,735,055
07/01/03 1,084,395 4,645,660 5,730,055
07/01/04 1,084,395 4,650,660 5,735,055
07/01/05 1,084,395 4,645,660 5,730,055
07/01/06 1,084,395 4,645,660 5,730,055
07/01/07 1,084,395 4,645,660 5,730,055
07/01/08 1,084,395 4,645,660 5,730,055
07/01/09 1,084,395 4,645,660 5,730,055
07/01/10 1,084,395 4,645,660 5,730,055
07/01/11 1,084,395 4,645,660 5,730,055
07/01/12 2,159,395 4,645,660 6,805,055
07/01/13 2,161,995 4,648,490 6,810,485
07/01/14 2,158,835 4,648,910 6,807,745
07/01/15 2,159,915 4,646,190 6,806,105
07/01/16 2,159,515 4,649,600 6,809,115
07/01/17 2,157,275 4,647,680 6,804,955
07/01/18 2,157,075 4,648,070 6,805,145
07/01/19 2,158,900 4,645,820 6,804,720
07/01/20 2,157,025 4,649,828 6,806,853
07/01/21 2,161,088 4,648,255 6,809,343
TOTAL $43,278,918 $116,501,703 $159,780,620
Payment Source:
Continuin g Fees
Connection Fees
Contribution by County
COLJI~ITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGi1VIA
$15 Million General Obligation Debt
Alternative Structures >
30 Yr GO
20 Yr GO 25 Yr GO 25 Yr GO 30 Yr GO (Int only 1-10,
(Int only 1-10, (Int only 1-10, (Int only 1-15, (Int only 1-20, CABs 11-15,
20 Yr GO 15 & 20 CABs 11-20, CABs 16-20, 25 & 30 20,25 & 30
Date Se( r 1_201 Yr Terms 25 Yr Term) 25 Yr Term) Yr Terms Yr Terms
07/01/92 $1,414,990 $1,066,270 $673,920 $866,520 $1,084,395 $1,001,298
07/01/93 1,417,000 1,066,270 673,920 866,520 1,084,395 1,001,298
07/01/94 1,416,890 1,066,270 673,920 866,520 1,084,395 1,001,298
07!01/95 1,414,800 1,066,270 673,920 866,520 1,084,395 1,001,298
07/01/96 1,415,680 1,066,270 673,920 866,520 1,084,395 1,001,298
07/01/97 1,414,155 1,066,270 673,920 866,520 1,084,395 1,001,298
07/01/98 1,415,165 1,066,270 673,920 866,520 1,084,395 1,001,298
07/01/99 1,418,315 1,066,270 673,920 866,520 1,084,395 1,001,298
07/01/00 1,413,490 1,066,270 673,920 866,520 1,084,395 1,001,298
07/01/01 1,415,990 1,066,270 673,920 866,520 1,084,395 1,001,298
07/01/02 1,415,095 2,146,270 2,293,920 866,520 1,084,395 1,546,298
07/01/03 1,415,760 2,150,130 2,298,920 866,520 1,084,395 1,546,298
07/01/04 1,417,593 2,148,350 2,293,920 866,520 1,084,395 1,541,298
07/01/05 1,415,193 2,150,930 2,293,920 866,520 1,084,395 1,541,298
07/01/06 1,413,505 2,147,165 2,293,920 866,520 1,084,395 1,541,298
07/01/07 1,417,588 2,147,055 2,293,920 2,951,520 1,084,395 1,546,298
07/01/08 1,416,233 2,148,375 2,293,920 2,951,520 1,084,395 1,547,330
07/01/09 1,414,908 2,146,830 2,293,920 2,946,520 1,084,395 1,545,503
07/01/10 1,417,683 2,147,063 2,293,920 2,946,520 1,084,395 1,545,815
07/01/11 1,414,380 2,148,358 2,293,920 2,946,520 1,084,395 1,547,910
07/01/12 2,293,920 2,951,520 2,159,395 1,546,430
07/01/13 2,297,280 2,951,400 2,161,995 1,545,990
07/01/14 2,297,000 2,950,480 2,158,835 1,546,590
07/01/15 2,292,720 2,953,040 2,159,915 1,542,870
07/01/16 2,294,080 2,948,000 2,159,515 1,544,830
07/01/17 2,157,275 1,546,750
07/01/18 2,157,075 1,547,725
07/01/19 2,158,900 1,547,900
07/01/20 2,157,025 1,546,913
07/01/21 2,161,088 1,544,400
TOTAL $28,314,410 $32,143,225 $41,158,400 $42,494,840 $43,278,918 $40,922,715
COUNTY OF ROANOKE VIRGINIA
$15 Million GeneratObligation Debt
Alternative Structures
30 Yr GO
(Int only 1-10,
CABs 11-20, 30 Yr GO
25 & 30 (Int only 1-29, 30 Yr GO 30 Yr GO
Date Yr Terms) 30 Yr Term) (CABs 6-30) (CABs 11-30)
07/01/92 $867,880 $1,087,500
07/01/93 867,880 1,087,500
07/01/94 867,880 1,087,500
07/01/95 867,880 1,087,500
07/01/96 867,880 1,087,500
07/01/97 867,880 1,087,500 $1,855,000
07/01/98 867,880 1,087,500 1,850,000
07/01/99 867,880 1,087,500 1,850,000
07/01/00 867,880 1,087,500 1,850,000
07/01/01 867,880 1,087,500 1,850,000
07/01/02 1,727,880 1,087,500 1,850,000 $2,915,000
07/01/03 1,727,880 1,087,500 1,850,000 2,915,000
07/01/04 1,732,880 1,087,500 1,850,000 2,915,000
07/O1/OS 1,727,880 1,087,500 1,855,000 2,910,000
07/01/06 1,727,880 1,087,500 1,850,000 2,910,000
07/01/07 1,727,880 1,087,500 1,850,000 2,910,000
07/01/08 1,727,880 1,087,500 1,850,000 2,910,000
07/01/09 1,727,880 1,087,500 1,850,000 2,910,000
07/01/10 1,727,880 1,087,500 1,850,000 2,910,000
07/01/11 1,727,880 1,087,500 1,850,000 2,910,000
07/01/12 1,727,880 1,087,500 1,850,000 2,910,000
07/01/13 1,725,960 1,087,500 1,850,000 2,910,000
07/01/14 1,729,720 1,087,500 1,850,000 2,915,000
07/01/15 1,728,440 1,087,500 1,850,000 2,910,000
07/01/16 1,727,120 1,087,500 1,850,000 2,910,000
07/01/17 1,730,400 1,087,500 1,850,000 2,910,000
07/01/18 1,726,950 1,087,500 1,850,000 2,910,000
07/01/19 1,727,337 1,087,500 1,850,000 2,910,000
07/01/20 1,730,838 1,087,500 1,850,000 2,910,000
07/01/21 1,726,725 16,087,500 1,850,000 2,910,000
TOTAL $43,243,970 $47,625,000 $46,260,000 $58,220,000
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
$40 Million Water and Sewer. Revenue Bonds..
Alternative Structures
30 Yr Rev 30 Yr Rev 30 Yr Rev 30 Yr Rev
(Ser 1-15, (Ser 1-10, (Int only 1-10, (Int only 1-10,
20 & 30 CABs 11-20, Ser 11-20, CABs 11-20,
Date Yr Terms) 25 & 30 Terms) 25 & 30 Terms) 25 & 30 Terms)
07/01/92 $3,311,555 $2,920,368 $2,911,333 $2,355,660
07/01/93 3,310,110 2,918,923 2,911,333 2,355,660
07/01/94 3,311,445 2,920,258 2,911,333 2,355,660
07/01/95 3,310,405 2,919,218 2,911,333 2,355,660
07!01/96 3,311,930 2,920,743 2,911,333 2,355,660
07/01/97 3,310,630 2,919,443 2,911,333 2,355,660
07/01/98 3,311,435 2,920,248 2,911,333 2,355,660
07/01/99 3,308,935 2,917,748 2,911,333 2,355,660
07/01/00 3,313,383 2,922,195 2,911,333 2,355,660
07/01/01 3,309,048 2,917,860 2,911,333 2,355,660
07/01/02 3,311,228 3,730,038 3,866,333 4,650,660
07/01/03 3,309,178 3,730,039 3,864,483 4,645,660
07/01/04 3,312,843 3,730,039 3,867,573 4,650,660
07/01/05 3,311,458 3,730,038 3,864,828 4,645,660
07/01/06 3,309,958 3,730,039 3,866,173 4,645,660
07/01/07 3,313,453 3,730,038 3,866,440 4,645,660
07/01/08 3,310,078 3,730,040 3,864,600 4,645,660
07/01/09 3,310,903 3,730,038 3,865,920 4,645,660
07/01/10 3,310,203 3,730,037 3,868,908 4,645,660
07/01/11 3,312,615 3,730,038 3,868,558 4,645,660
07/01/12 3,312,415 4,145,040 3,864,508 4,645,660
07/01/13 3,312,610 4,145,100 3,865,443 4,648,490
07/01/14 3,308,985 4,144,135 3,866,158 4,648,910
07/01/15 3,311,173 4,146,410 3,865,923 4,646,190
07/01/16 3,313,070 4,145,823 3,869,008 4,649,600
07/01!17 3,313,943 4,141,638 3,869,318 4,647,680
07/01/18 3,313,055 4,143,120 3,864,765 4,648,070
07/01/19 3,309,673 4,143,800 3,865,880 4,645,820
07/01/20 3,313,060 4,142,575 3,866,193 4,649,828
07/01/21 3,311,748 4,138,343 3,864,600 4,648,255
TOTAL $99,340,518 $107,933,368 $106,438,930 $116,501,703
Wheat, First Securities, Inc.
Description of Long-Term, Municipal Bond Ratings
Provided by
Moody's Investors Service and Standard & Poor's Corporation
Moodv's Investors Service
Rating Description
Standard & Poor's Corporation
Rating Description
"Aaa" Bonds which aze rated "Aaa" aze
judged to be of the best quality.
They carry the smallest degree
of investment risk and are
generally referred to as "gilt
edge." Interest payments are
protected by a lazge or by an
exceptionally stable mazgin and
principal is secure. While the
various protective elements are
likely to change, such changes as
can be visualized are most
unlikely to impair the
fundamentally strong position of
such issues.
"Aa" Bonds which are rated "Aa" are
judged to be of high quality by
all standazds. Together with the
"Aaa" group they comprise what
aze generally known as high
grade bonds. They are rated
lower than the best bonds
because mazgins of protection
may not be as large as in "Aaa"
securities or fluctuation of
protective elements may be of
greater amplitude or there may
be other elements present which
make the long-term risks appeaz
somewhat larger than in "Aaa"
securities.
"AAA" Debt rated "AAA" has the
highest rating assigned by
Standazd & Poor's. Capacity to
pay interest and repay principal
is extremely strong.
"AA" Debt rated "AA" has a very
strong capacity to pay interest
and repay principal and differs
from the highest rated issues
only in small degree.
Wheat, First Securities, Inc.
Description of Long-Term Municipal Bond Ratings (Continued)
Moodv's Investors Service
Rating Description
Standard & Poor's Corporation
Rating Description
"A" Bonds which are rated "A"
possess many favorable
investment attributes and are to
be considered as upper medium
grade obligations. Factors
giving security to principal and
interest are considered adequate,
but elements may be present
which suggest a susceptibility to
impairment sometime in the
future.
"Baa" Bonds which are rated "Baa" are
considered as medium grade
obligations, i.e., they are neither
highly protected nor poorly
secured. Interest payments and
principal security appear
adequate for the present but
certain protective elements may
be lacking or may be
characteristically unreliable over
any great length of time. Such
bonds lack outstanding
investment characteristics and in
fact have speculative
characteristics as well.
Note: For Moody's ratings, those
bonds in the "Aa", "A" and
"Baa" groups which Moody's
believes possess the strongest
investment attributes are
designated by the symbols
"Aal", "A1" and "Baal".
"A" Debt rated "A" has a strong
capacity to pay interest and
repay principal although it is
somewhat more susceptible to
the adverse effects of changes in
circumstances and economic
conditions than debt in higher
rated categories.
"BBB" Debt rated "BBB" is regarded as
having an adequate capacity to
pay interest and repay principal.
Whereas it normally exhibits
adequate protection parameters,
adverse economic conditions or
changing circumstances are more
likely to lead to a weakened
capacity to pay interest and
repay principal for debt in this
category than in higher rated
categories.
Note: For S&P ratings, the ratings may
be modified by the addition of a
plus (+) or minus (-) sign to
show relative standing within the
major rating categories.
S&P's MUNICIPAL FINANCE CRITERIA
S&P MUNICIPAL DEBT RATING PROCESS
ISSUER REOUESTOR 58P ANALYSTS ISSUER
MEETING-
OR ITS COMPLETES ASSIGNS RESEARCH
PRESENTATION
R
R
AUTHORIZED SSP RATMG ANALYTICAL A
Y
56P LIB
TO S8P
REPRESENTATIVE FORM AND TEAM TO INTERNAL
New REQUESTS A ISSUE IS THE ISSUE FILES ANO PERSONNEL
"'-'-~~~--"""`
RATING ENTERED
' DATABASES ---
T
Issue INTO S6P
S
ADMINISTRATIVE ION
RESOLU
ANALYSTS OF QUESTIONS
ANO CONTROL REVIEW NEW AND CONCERNS FINAL
SYSTEMS MATERIAL ANALYTICAL
FROM ISSUER REVIEW
CONDUCT PREPARATION
PRELIMINARY
OR OF RATING
ANALYSIS. PROFILE
AND LIST AND
ANALYSTS PRELIMINARY CREOITWATCH ANALYSTS UNRESOLVED S6P COMMITTEE
REVIEW REVIEW CRITERIA REQUEST QUESTIONS PERSONNEL PRESENTATION
Rating NEW DATA INDICATES (EVENT OR ISSUER BCONCERNS VISIT ISSUER
Review ON ISSUER POSSIBILITY OF DEVIATION MEETING FACILITIES
°-
FOr RATING
CHANGE FROM TREND(
PROMPT AND PROCEED ----°-~---------
WITH ISSUER
NOTIFICATION COMPREHENSIVE MAKES
Possible TO ISSUER ANALYSIS ON-SITE
Change ANO LISTING PRESENTATION
PRESENTATION NOTIFICATION FORMAL RATING (NEW
OF THE OF RATING NOTIFICATION CHANGED. OR
ANALYSIS DECISION TO ISSUER AFFIRMED(
TO THE S8P TO ISSUER DOES OR ITS ENTERED
RATING OR ITS ISSUER WISH TO NO AUTHORIZED INTO $6P5
J COMMITTEE AUTHORIZED APPEAL BY FURNISHING REPRESENTATIVE RATING
-7 ---------------~-------~~ REPRESENTATIVE ADDITIONAL ....._....-...._....._.. SURVEILLANCE
DISCUSSION INFORMATIONS RATING iS SYSTEM
AND VOTE TO RELEASED
DETERMINE
RATING
DES
PRESENTATION
OF ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION
TO $yP RATING
COMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
AND VOTE TO
CONFIRM OR
MODIFY RATING
~ ~ E. PAUL NAYES IR ETIRtpt
GILB ERT L. SEAY
Al4.:iiITECTS ENt3INEERS PLANNERS EDWIN K.MATTERN(RCi'1 ~'
GUILFORD L. MATTERN
GLYNN
O. BARRANGER
N. BOYO DICKENSON
WILLIAM L. MYERS REPLY TO: PEMBROKE TWO OFFCCI• BUILDING
BYRD N. SARKSDALE, JR. SUITE 124
JOHN R. NILOE~RAND 287 PEMBROKE OFFICE PARK
ERIC T. NASCMOLO,JR. VIRGINIA SEACN, VIRGINIA 234x2
FLETCNER F. RUSN -
J. OLIVER STEIN
JAMES M. STRICKLANO, JR.
WENOLE R. SNAPP
REPORT ON
SEWERAGE CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
OF TAE
FIAMP'TON ROADS SANITATION DISTRICT,
VIRGINIA
2 December 1976
Hampton Roads Sanitation District
P. O. Box 5000
Virginia Beach, Virginia 23455
Gentlemen:
Pursuant to Section 210 of the Trust Agreement and in our capacity as Consulting Engineers, we aze
pleased to submit herewith our report on existing sewerage properties, the proposed expansion and improve-
ment of these facilities, and past, present and probable future operating revenues and expenses.
The~cnnaent report is based on recent and forecast trends in development activity in the District, studies
of the present and future operating requirements of the sewerage system, and studies of the financial condi-
tion of the District. As Consulting Engineers to the District under the Trust Agreement, Hayes, Seay, Maztern
and Matters have conducted studies on the planning and design of the system and its elements, the capital
and operating costs of the system, treatment requirements under Federal and State water quality regulations,
and the District's probable operating revenues for the next several years. We feel that these studies and the
current report serve to demonstrate the necessity and feasibility of the proposed issuance of $20,000,000
Primary Pledge Sewer Revenue Bonds.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE DLSTRICT
The Hampton Roads Sanitation District Commission was created under Chapter 407 of the Acts of
Assembly of Virginia of 1940, and authorized to exercise all powers granted by the Sanitation District's Law
of 1938. This legislation and Chapter 66 of the Acts of Assembly of Virginia of 1960, as smended, provide
that the District, constituted as a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, may construct, im-
prove, extend, maintain and operate sewerage systems within or without its boundaries, issue revenue bonds
and notes for purposes of paying the costs of such sewerage systems and providing funds for other authorized
purposes of the District, and fix, revise, and collect fees and other charges for sewage transmission, treatment
and disposal.
18
,p:
REPORT OF AAYES, SEAY, MATTERN AND MATTERN
The District, as originally constituted, included the cities of Norfolk, South Norfolk, Portsmouth, New-
' port News and Hampton; the counties of Elizabeth City and Warwick; and portions of Isle of Wight, Nanse-
mond, Princess Anne, Norfolk and York counties. The cities of Williamsburg, Poquoson and Suffolk and
York and James City counties were subsequently added to the District. In 1942, the City of Portsmouth
elected to withdraw from the District.
Mergers of political jurisdictions and adjustments of municipal boundaries have modified the service
area to create the present District which consists of the cities of Norfolk, Chesapeake, Virginia Beach, Suffolk,
~° Newport News, Hampton, Williamsburg and Poquoson; the counties of York and James City; and portions
of the City of Portsmouth and Isle of Wight County.
The District azea is approximately 1,685 square miles and the population as of 1970 was approximately
' 950,000.
During World Waz R, the United States Government constructed sewage transmission and treatment
systems in the area to service growth in military facilities. These systems included the Army Base Sewage
Treatment Plant, several pumping stations, and interceptor sewers on the North and South Shores.
At the end of the waz, the District purchased these facilities valued at $5,500,000 for $2,750,000 and
-_ in 1946, $6,500,000 of revenue bonds were issued for the purpose of initiating construction of additional
facilities. This original construction program included the Boat Harbor Sewage Treatment Plant on the North
Shore and the Lamberts Point Sewage Treatment Plant and interceptors serving Norfolk.
After the completion of this initial construction program, numerous additions and improvements were
made to the system, and financed by excess revenues, Federal and State grants, and contributions from
developers and the District's constitutent municipalities.
During the 1950's and early 1960's, the rapid urban and suburban development of the District con-
~, timed, and in 1962, the Commission initiated along-range construction program to provide service to the
developing azeas. Major facilities included in the program were three new sewage treatment plants: Chess-
- peake-Elizabeth and Western Branch on the South Shore and James River on the North Shore. In addition,
four new sewage transmission systems were planned for construction.
Construction was begun on these facilities in 1962, using monies from an issue of $10,000,000 of
" Primary Pledge Bonds sold that year. Proceeds from this issue were also used to retire debt on the 1946 issue.
In addition, $1,490,000 of 2114 % Secondary Pledge Revenue Bonds were issued in 1962 to extinguish con-
tractual obligations for the facilities eazlier built by the U. S. Government.
In 1967, the District sold $8,000,000 of Primary Pledge Revenue Bonds in order to continue construc-
tion of facilities as outlined in the 1962 program.
w, During the same period, continued growth within the District boundaries and the addition of the cities of
Williamsburg and Suffolk and the counties of York and James City required additions to the 1962 con-
'" struction program. These included additions to the transmssion system at the James River Treatment Plant
and a new sewage treatment plant at Williamsburg.
In 1972, the District initiated a new long-range construction program to accommodate anticipated
growth within the system, to provide service to unsewered azeas, and to upgrade the quality of wastewater
treatment in compliance with the 1972 amendments to the Water Quality Act, PL 92-500. This program
was designed .to be completed by 1980,~and the original estimate of the total cost was $180,446,000. The
construction program and its financing are discussed in detail in the sections Construction Program and
Operating Revenues and Expenses.
As of October 30, 1976, there aze nine sewage treatment plants in operation by the District and three
' new plants proposed. The Deep Creek Lagoon and the Washington Plant are scheduled to be retired from ser-
ve, vice upon completion of trunk sewers now under construction, and their flow diverted to the Chesapeake-
19
'`
REPORT OF AAYES, SEAY, MATTERN AND MATTERN
Elisabeth Plant. The Western Branch Plant is scheduled to be retired from service upon completion of the
`Nansemond Plant. The following table indicates their current capacities, capacities under design or planned
under the current program and present sewage flows. While the increase in capacity is significant, the greater
impact in terms of cost is the upgrading of the level of treatment throughout the District, particularly at Boat
~iarbor, Lamberts Point, and Army Base in compliance with the requirements of PL 92-500.
Existing snd Proposed Capadties
(Million Gallons Per Day )
Existing Additto~l Capadty
Design Undu Design Arerage Flow
Plant Capacity or Planed Fiscal Year 1976
Chesapeake-Elizabeth ....................... 24.0 - 16.2 -
~ames River ............................... 15.0 - 12.4
i~Villiamsburg .............................. 9.6 5.0 5.0
lamberts Point ............................ 30.0 5.0 26.1
Boat Harbor .............................. 22.0 3.0 20.8
'army Base ............................... 14.0 4.0 13.1
,.Western Branch (1) ......................... 3.0 - 1.7
Watbing6on(1) ............................ 0.65 - 0.6
Deep Creek(1) ............................ 0.6 - 0.5 _
i
Nansemond ............................... - 10.0 -
Xork River ............................... - 15.0 -
~tlantic .................................. - 36.0 -
~'OTAL (all plants) ........................ 118.9 78.0 96.4
1) These plants scheduled to be retired from service.
An inventory of the transmission system elements in service on October 30, 1976 is presented and
compared with a similar inventory for January 1, 1972 and June 30, 1974:
Number of Lineal Feet
Type of Sewer 1972 1974 1976
60"-30" ........................ 303,692 465,856 570,919
27"-20" ........................ 216,373 270,768 402,753
18" & 16" ........................ 156,898 165,568 206,810
15" & smaller ..................... 206,486 218,886 242,540
Total ........................ 883,449 1,121,078 1,423,022
TREND OF DEVELOPMENT
' As noted earlier, the area within the District has experienced rapid urbanization since the Commission's
#,ormation. This growth is illustrated by the population enumerated in each decennial census or forecast by
ie Virginia Division of State Planning and Community Affairs in the table below:
Anneal Rate .
Year Population of Increase
1940 ........................... 295,925 -
1950 ............................ 509,541 5.6%
1960 ............................ 660,338 2.6%
1970 ............................ 952,297 4.5%
1980 ............................ 1,066,900 1.1%
1990 ............................ 1,193,000 1.1%
2000 ............................ 1,306,000 0.9%
20
REPORT OF HAYES, SEAY, MATTERN AND MATTERN
Although some of the growth is due to the expansion of District boundaries, the azea currently constitut-
ing the District has shown rapid growth over the same period (1940-1970). Assuming no change in District
boundaries, forecasts by the Virginia Division of State Planning and Community Affairs indicate an expected
increase in population to over 1.3 million persons for the District by the year 2000.
Although housing starts have been down in recent years, the slowdown experienced during the 1974-75
recession has diminished and the outlook in the near future is favorable. The number of building permits
issued has increased and mortgage rates have stabilized and may even drop during the next year. Thus, the
- long-term growth potential of the area seems to be improving.
Even more revealing than the total population growth in the azea is the trend in total flow treated by the
District's systems. The following chart indicates the annual average flows treated for the period 1948-76. While
there is some variation due to infiltration differentials, a strong upward trend is evident.
CONDITIONS OF PROPERTIES
All- of the properties and facilities of the Hampton Roads Sanitation District are inspected by the Con-
sulting Engineers at least annually. The facilities of the District are operated in a safe and efficient manner
under slnIIed technical supervision. The District provides a training program for its operators and 53 of the
. plant operators have received state certification.
The sewage treatment plants and pumping stations are of permanent design and construction insuring
a long serviceable life. They aze maintained in excellent condition. A scheduled program for up-grading and
' replacement of electrical pump controls at many of the older pumping stations is nearing completion, as well
as the installation of emergency pump connections and/or auxiliary power generating equipment.
The facility's equipment is updated, repaired or rebuilt as required to maintain it in proper operational
order. An improved operating and maintenance system of accounts is being initiated which is tied into the
District's automated data processing equipment so that running inventories of operation and maintenance
supplies and spare parts as well as up-to-date cost records can be provided.
CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
In order to meet the demands for sewage treatment generated by population and economic growth and to
comply with the requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the District established its con-
struction program to upgrade and expand sewage treatment and transmission facilities. Key features of this
construction program included both the interim and long-range upgrading and expansion of primary treatment
plants at Lamberts Point, Boat Hazbor and Army Base. The proposed Nansemond plant will replace the exist-
ing Western Branch plant and is programmed to allow extension of sewage service to the City of Suffolk, as
well as additional portions of the City of Chesapeake.
In addition to these improveme~s to existing facilities on the South Shore of Hampton Roads, the pro-
gram included provisions for the construction of the Atlantic plant in the vicinity of Dam Neck to handle the
rapid growth in the Virginia Beach area over the next fifteen to twenty years. This facility is planned to be,
initially, a 36 mgd treatment plant with asub-aqueous discharge to the Atlantic Ocean. This plant will be
linked to the existing looped force main system in the City of Virginia Beach in order to provide flexibility for
flow diversion between the Atlantic and Chesapeake-Elizabeth systems so as to permit maximum system effi-
ciency aad reliability.
Also included in the original construction program were extensive improvements to sewage facilities on
the North Shon of Hampton Roads. These included expansion of the James River and Williamsburg treat-
21
REPORT OF HAYES, SEAY, MATTERN AND MATTERN
went facilities and the construction of a new system to serve rapidly growing areas in York County. The York
River plant is planned to be located in the vicinity of Goodwin Neck and to have an initial capacity of 15
million gallons per day. Improvements to the Williamsburg system will include improved expansion of the
existing treatment plant to 14.6 million gallons per day and the extension of the transmissron system. The
system of force mains under construction or planned will link the systems together and provide the flexibility
to interchange flows between the Boat Harbor, James River, Williamsburg and proposed York River plants,
thereby providing the ability to fully utilize all plant capacity.
The District's construction program which was formulated in 1972 was estimated at $180,446,000 as the
total cost for all capital improvement projects. Since 1972, the District has committed $91,824,564 primarily
financed through the $25,000,000 1973 revenue bond issue and the $30,000,000 1974 revenue bond issue,
and .through surplus earnings. During the four years since the formulation of the original construction pro-
gram, inflation, delays in receipt of Federal and State funds, and increasingly stringent treatment requirements
have pushed the costs upward. This has caused a continuous re-evaluation of both the costs and scheduling
of the construction program. Consequently, the improvements and additions originally estimated to cost
$180,446,000 aze now estimated at a total cost of $318,071,445.
A comparison of the cost of the original 1972 construction program with the most recent estimate
established in the 1976 rate study is summarized by the following estimated annual capital expenditures.
Fiscal Year 1972 Estimate 1976 Estimate
1972 $ 1,456,000
1973 17,760,000
1974 44,774,000 $ 91,824,564(1)
1975 35,114,000
1976 55,689,000
1977 14,192,000 18,896,500
1978 8,155,000 68,622,500
1979 3,306,000 75,667,500
1980 - 36,667,500
1981 - 26,392,881
$180,446,000 $318,071,445
(1) Includes increases in book value of system for fiscal years 1972-1976 and construction in progress as
of June 30, 1976: A small portion of this figure was unexpended as of this date, and will be reflected as
expenditures during fiscal years 1977 and 1978.
Despite the delay and impoundment of Federal funds, much has been accomplished in the last four
yeazs. The key accomplishments as of this date are the completion of the expansion of the Chesapeake-
., Elizabeth plant from 8 to 24 mgd, several major interceptor force mains which extend and inter-connect the
Chesapeake-Elizabeth and Atlantic systems, and the additions to transmission system elements throughout
the Hampton Roads Sanitation District system. Other major projects recently finished aze the James River
plant expansion from 5 to 15 mgd, the sludge incineration facilities at the Williamsburg and Chesapeake-
Elizabeth plants, the interim improvements at Lamberts Point, Army Base, Boat Hazbor plants upgrading
these plants to a level above primary treatment, and including sludge incineration facilities. During the past
yeaz, the District completed and occupied its new Operations Center complex which includes general offices
- for management, engineering, finance, computerized billing, centralized laboratory facilities for the South
Shore, and i;entralized maintenance shops and materials yazds. It should be noted that most of the $91
million in completed construction was accomplished with District funds.
Most of the remaining projects in the construction program are eligible for Federal grants equivalent to
75 percent of their eligible cost; thus, it has been assumed that these grant monies will be made available to
help cover the estimated construction cost expected during fiscal years 1977 and 1978 as summarized in the
'~ following table.
23
<~
REPORT OF HAYES, SEAY, MATTERN AND MATTERN
CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
FISCAL YEARS 1 977 and 1978
(Thousands of Dollars)
Treatment Traasmissioa Total
. ................................... $17,270.0 $ - $17,270.0
.- izabeth ............................ 70.8 3,755.3 3,826.1
i •_....••••••••••••••••• .............. 7,535.0 10,513.1 18,048.1
- •••••••••••••••••• .................. 15,837.6 250.0 16,087.6
'c it .................................
5,793.4
754.5
6,547.9 .~
•••.•••••••••••.• ................. 6,725.0 1,608.4 8,333.4
rr ................................... - 131.3 131.3
rg ~ ................................... - 488.8 488.8 ..
~i • • . • ............................... 18,205.1 695.0 18,900.1
st_~ ................................. 825.6 - 825.6
ipital Cost ............................ $72,262.5 $18,196.4 $90,458.9
~. Jrants ... • • • ....................... ($52,588.1) ($13,306.8) ($65,894.9)
District ............................. $19,674.4 $ 4,889.6 $24,564.0
CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS
)i riot's capital requirements during the next two fiscal years, 1977 and 1978, throughout the
•ri_.. areas is expected to amount to $90.5 million, plus $2.3 million of retentions on completed con-
, retirement of short-term notes of $4.65 million for a total of $97.45 million. Of the $97.45
al "°apital cost, $65.9 million is expected to be financed through Federal grants. The remaining
li ,,} net cost to the District will be financed from bond proceeds and surplus earnings. As of
X76, the District had approximately $5 million available for construction purposes. Based on rates
:c°~ber 1, 1976, approximately $7 million will be available from surplus earnings and accumulated
:-i~ fiscal years 1977 and 1978. Given the total requirement of $31.55 million during these two
ttie net capital requirement is approximately $20 million, indicating the need for the current
end issues cannot be precisely scheduled at this time due largely to the uncertainty with
:7e t`uning of future Federal grant funds which must be counted upon to finance a majority of the
ts. ,fit is the expressed intention of the District not to proceed with the construction of a major
v ich grant funds have been requested without the approval of the grant application and com-
g.~nt funds by the regulatory agencies. Therefore, this construction pmgram will be periodically
d to permit accurate scheduling of construction projects and future bond issues in line with the
le "rants.
OPERATING REVENUES AND EXPENSES
of -ut Revenges
g ,e last decade, both the District's revenues and expenses have increased severalfold, as illus-
e table below: , .
30 Realized Reveaae
(Less Refunds) Operating
E=penees Debt Service
Costs Sarpi®
Earning
.............. $ 3,207,809 $1,272,742 $ 784,470 $1,150,597 '
............... 3,187,802 1,388,154 920,726 878,922
............ 3,545,213 1,603,795 919,297 1,022,121
.. ............ 3,965,013 1,873,620 917,019 1,174,374
............... 4,494,680 2,135,882 921,293 1,437,505
...,............ 4,695,187 2,449,390 1,088,973 1,156,824
.. ............ 8,222,276 2,974,058 1,494,411 3,753,807
.. ............ 11,398,416 4,196,792 2,597,866 4,603,758
............... 15,193,105 5,342,607 4,450,000 5,400,498
.. ............ 16,746,261 6,783,702 $5,192,965 $4,769,594
24
REPORT OF HAYES, SEAY, MATTERN AND MATTERN
-hese increases in revenues are due to increases in number of customers and rate increases during fiscal
1 ""'2, 1973 and 1976. Increases in operating costs have been due to increased service and costs of
~c nputs to the treatment process.
Operating Revenues
'1: 1976 rate study developed a detailed analysis of revenue growth for fiscal years 1977 and
It""was based primarily on historical trends in billable consumption. Service charge revenues are ex-
to grow 21 percent between fiscal years 1976 and 1977, and 16 percent between fiscal years 1977 and
r~ 'ecting increases in billable consumption and the recent rate increase.
chedules
it -; the 1974 bond sale, there have been two rate increases adopted by the District. In August 1975,
i~ rease averaging approximately 22 percent was implemented, and on December 1, 1976, an increase
~rozimately 16 percent took effect. A comparison of all of the various charges for both schedules is
tee-below:
First 9,000 cu. ft./quarter
or 3,000 cu. ft./month ........... .
Next 990,000 cu. ft./quarter
or 330,000 cu. ft./month ......... .
In excess of 999,000 cu. ft./quarter
or 333,000 cu. ft./month ......... .
Minimum Charge:
Allowance 1,000 cubic feet/quarter
or 300 cu. ft./month
Previous
$0.45/100 cu. ft.
$ 0.41 / 100 cu. ft.
$0.40/100 cu. ft.
$4.50/quarter or
$1.50/month
Current
$0.52/100 cu. ft.
$0.48/100 cu. ft.
$0.47/100 cu. ft.
$5.20/quarter or
$1.70/month
Sills are based on water consumption: as reported by the District's constituent municipalities.
Quarterly charges for premises $8.00 first toilet $9.00 first toilet
with unmetered water connections $5.30 additional for $6.00 additional for
are based on the number of toilets second toilet second toilet
in use $2.60 each addi- $3.00 each addi-
tional toilet tional toilet
ir~~s: (for excess over 250 parts per million)
Biochemical Oxygen Demand .......... $6.10/1001bs. $7.90/1001bs.
Suspended Solids .................... $6.80/ 100 lbs. $8.60/ 1001bs.
Dumpage of Septic Tank Sludge ....... $4.00/500 gal. $7.00/500 gal.
e ..~sposal Facilities Charge (Tap Fee)
Meter Size Previous Current
S/s" ................................. $ 230 $ 250
3/a" ................................. 460 500
1 ................................. 690 750
lt/z" ................................. 1,150 1,240
2 ................................. 1,840 1,990
3 ................................. 3,680 3,970
4 ................................. 5,950 6,420
6 ................................. 11,500 12,410
8 ................................. 18,400 19,860
10 ................................. 26,500 28,600
25
' REPORT OF HAYES, SEAY, MATTERN AND MATTERN
~utnre Operating Expenses
Our estimates of future operating expenses are based on studies of the cost of administration, billing
i ;rvision, salaries and wages of personnel, both administrative and operational, costs of fuel, power,
:hemicals, materials, repair and replacement of equipment and components throughout the treatment plants
~nd~ collection system.
In estimating future operating expenditures, allowances have been made for the additional costs associ-
itC'd with new treatment plants, improved processes, chemical additions and -additional manpower and fuel
-e~uired by the expansion program now underway. In particular, the contract for power with Virginia Elec-
r Power Company expired June 30, 1976 and although the terms of a new contract have yet to be ne-
;c--~ated, there is every reason to believe the increase will be substantial. This increase in power alone is
xpected to account for over $1 million increase in operating costs between fiscal years 1976 and 1977.
Our estimates of future operating costs for fiscal years 1977 to 1981 are presented in the table below:
Fiscal Year ~~d°g
Expenses
1977 ...............................$10,230,000
1978 ...............................$11,668,000
1979 ...............................$12,251,000
1980 ...............................$12,864,000
1981 ...............................$13,507,000
CASH FLUB' ANALYSIS
,.,, These estimates of operating revenues and expenses and estimates of construction costs were used in a
:ash flow analysis in order to indicate the probable financial position of the District during fiscal years 1977-
9~a. This analysis is presented in the following table.
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED OPERATIONS
UNDER PRESENTLY SCHEDULED PROGRAM
(Thousands of Dollars)
Fiscal Year Ending Jane 30
to ';noes' 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
rv1CC ChargCS ..................... .
Investment and Miscellaneous Income ... .
..Total ............................
)F 'acing Expenditures ................ .
revenue Available for Debt Service ...... , ,
'rin~ipal and Interest Primary Pledge Bonds
.a nce Available for Other Debt ........ .
'ti..~pal and Interest-Secondary Pledge
Bonds .............................
.e `+ired Deposit to Reserve Account ..... .
.e ,,rve for Cttrrent Expenses . , .... , , , , , ,
glance Available for Capital Projects ..... .
ri ;ipat and Interest Coverage-Primary
l-;dgC Bonds .................
Only 4 months' revenue at new rate.
~ -vice chazge revenues are forecast to grow 4 percent annually for FY 79-81.
(-Peratiag costs aze forecast to increase by 5 percent annually for FY 79-81.
Only 4~i4 months' debt service on proposed bond issue @ 7% for 30 years.
26
$15,440 $18,6981 $21,782 $22,653= $23,559 $24,501
1,306 950 1,050 950 1,050 1,050
$16,746 $19,648 $22,832 $23,603 $24,609 $25,551
$ 6,784 $10,230 $11,668 $12,251' $12,864 $13,507
$ 9,962 $ 9,418 $11,164 $11,352 $11,745 $12,044
$ 5,043 $ 5,646* $ 6,649 $ 6,641 $ 6,634 $ 6,623
$ 4,919 $ 3,772 $ 4,515 $ 4,711 $ 5,111 $ 5,421
$ 150 $ 152 $ 149 $ 151 $ - 152 $ 149
$ 1,455 $ 1,612 $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ 351 $ 618 $ 287 $ 116 $ 123 $ 129
$ 2,963 $ 1,390 $ 4,079 $ 4,444 $ 4,836 $ 5,143
1.98 1.67 1.68 1.71 1.77 1.82
i
q
~~
t_
POwH
C:
~ ~
i 1~
~~ _
. I
r~~
IBRUN~
~_
~.
REPORT OF HAYES, SEAY, MATTERN AND MATTERN
Si)iVIlVIARY
In order to continue the District's construction program through fiscal year 1978, a $20 million bond
issue is required, Based on our studies of probable operating expenses and revenues under the recently adopted
rate schedule, net revenues will be adequate to provide debt service coverage and a margin of safety for the
bondholders,
Respectfully submitted,
HAYES, SEAY, MATTERN AND MATTERN
WENDLE R. $NAPP
Associate Partner
JAMES M. STRtCKLAND, IR.
Partner
27
EMPLOYEE -OWNED
3urns & M~~onnQll
ENGINEERS -ARCHITECTS -CONSULTANTS
February 10, 1989
Loudoun County Sanitation Authority
Members of the Board of Directors
880 Hamson Street, S.E.
Leesburg, Virginia 22075
Financial Feasibility Study
Project No. 76-011-3-008
Gentlemen:
We herewith present our report of the Financial Feasibility Study for the Capital Improvements
Program proposed by the Loudoun County Sanitation Authority (the "Authority").
Our study shows that the water and wastewater rates adopted by the Authority on February 10,
1989 will support operations and provide for adequate debt service coverage for the Series 1989
bonds issued to finance the first stages of the Capital Improvements Program. Our Study also
shows that the income projected for each year through fiscal 1998 will support forecasted
expenses, other cash requirements, the Capital Improvements Program and comply with the
terms of the Indenture of Trust, dated February 1, 1989. Water and wastewater rates for 1989
and the schedule of rate increases presented herein are the least required to generate revenues
necessary under the various expectations of growth conditions examined in the study. Water
and wastewater rates for 1989 are presented in Attachment 1.
THE LOUDOUN COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY
The Loudoun County Sanitation Authority is a public corporation and an instrumentality of the
Commonwealth of Virginia created by action of the Board of Supervisors of Loudoun County,
Virginia and chartered by the State Corporation Commission on May 27, 1959.
The Authority is authorized, among other things, (1) to acquire, construct, improve, operate and
maintain a water system for supplying and distributing water in Loudoun County, and a sewer
system and sewage disposal system for serving Loudoun County, (2) to issue revenue bonds of
the Authority, payable solely from revenues, to pay all or part of the cost of a water supply and
distribution system, a sewer system and sewage disposal system, (3) to fix, revise, charge and
collect rates, fees, and charges for the use of and for the services of any system operated by the
Authority and (4) to enter into contracts with any unit, including counties, cities and other
authorities, relating to the furnishing of services of the Authority. The Authority is subject to
the jurisdiction of the Virginia State Water Control Board and the Virginia State Health
Department.
4800 EA3T83rd STREET, P.O. BOX 419173, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI811 41-01 7 3 • TEL: 818.333J375 TWX: 914771.3059
C-1
_on Authority February 10, 1989
ed by an eight person Board of Directors, the members of which aze
~~'Supervisors of Loudoun County, Virginia. Day-to-day activities are
,iff of 70 employees.
area includes all of Loudoun County (517 square miles). The
r ~- Loudoun County operate water supply and sewerage systems
~__•ty. The demand for the Authority's services has been focused in the
County in the vicinity of Dulles International Airport. The Broad Run
.i ~~f eastern Loudoun County aze expected to capture most of Loudoun
~~, ~azeas, comprising approximately 117 square miles, are generally
inty (east), the Potomac River (north), Goose Creek (west) and Prince
zty's system serves approximately 33,800 residents through 12,061
m ..:.consists of a network of approximately 138 miles of sanitary sewer
r nes, and a 2MG treated water storage facility. The system does not
or"wastewater treatment facilities. The Authority contracts with others
:ICt~ supply of potable water.
r Sewer, constructed in 1961 to serve Dulles International Airport and
~i~ -and Maryland, traverses the northern portion of the service area and
3I ;Plains Wastewater Treatment Facility, owned and operated by the
the Authority disposes of sewage through metered connections to the
ie-°the terms and conditions of an agreement among the Authority and
( greement No. DCF-A-2351), dated October 24, 1963.
:-g' 'iia, owns and operates a water treatment facility on Goose Creek in
,tter transmission main which traverses the northern portion of the
~rity obtains its supply of treated water through metered connections to
r lpply system under terms and conditions of an agreement among the
in ~., and the City of Fairfax, dated September 22, 1959.
C-2
Burns 8 M~DonnQll
Loudoun County Sanitation Authority February 10, 1989
Growth Trends
The following table shows historical average daily flows of water purchase and sewage disposal
volumes and the number of accounts at year end.
Flow Volumes (MGD) Accounts
Z'eaz' Water Purchased Sewage Disposed Water Sewer
1983
1984 2.7 2.4 7,196 7,256
1985 3.0
3
5 2.3 8,087 8,155
1986 .
4
0 2.5 9,048 9,124
1987 .
4
6 2.6 10,226 10,312
1988 .
4
3 2.9 11,170 11,263
. 3.1 12,011 12,111
Maximum Capacity 6.0
17.9
The Authority's ten largest customers consume (collectively) 10.6 percent of the water sold by
the Authority. The Authority's single largest customer, a complex of residential condominiums,
consumes approximately 2.81 percent of all water sold.
Since 1983, water purchased has increased by approximately 63 percent and is encroaching on
available average day capacity. Water accounts have increased by about 67 percent indicating a
spreading of the distribution system. Likewise, sewage treatment volume and wastewater
accounts have increased correspondingly. The rate of growth, if continued at these levels, will
soon exhaust the Authority's ability to provide service. A master plan for each utility was,
therefore, developed to guide the Authority in its endeavor to provide service for new customers.
The master plans presented the Authority with the Capital Improvements Program, the initial
projects of which are financed by the Series 1989 bond issue.
THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
The projects of the Capital Improvements Program are the same as recommended in recent
master plan reports by the Authority's consulting engineers. In March 1988, the firm of Burns &
McDonnell, Consulting Engineers, developed an overall plan forecasting population growth and
providing for future water supply, treatment, and distribution facilities necessary to
accommodate the Authority's increasing near-term and long-range projected water demands.
This 1988 "County-Wide Water Supply Study for Loudoun County, Virginia" presents the
findings and recommendations for the Authority's water system improvements through the year
2040. In addition, Camp Dresser & McKee, Consulting Engineers, developed a corresponding
engineering master plan in 1986 titled "Study of Wastewater Management Alternatives in the
C-3
,. _ ~_ ~~
Burns S M~~onneil
Loudoun County Sanitation Authority
February 10, 1989
Occoquan Watershed of Loudoun County" for the Authority's wastewater system. The priority
and scheduling of projects for this Feasibility Study have their bases in these two reports.
Table 1 shows the project schedule of the Capital Improvements Program for both water and
wastewater utilities as well as for general support facilities. Improvements to the water system
include provisions for additional water supply, major transmission mains, and additions to the
distribution system including additional storage capacity. Improvements to the wastewater
utility provide for anticipated construction of a treatment plant in 1997 and for constructing
sewage lift stations.
The plan for improving water supply proposes that the Authority purchase capacity in the water
system owned by Fairfax County Water Authority (FCWA). The Authority is currently
negotiating with FCWA for the purchase by the Authority from FCWA of an entitlement to 6
MGD capacity of treated water and a 4 MGD capacity reservation to be available January 1,
1994. Subsequent purchases will occur in 1998 and thereafter. The need for an additional 8
MGD of water supply, Projects 6 and 7, will not occur until the year 2000. These projects are
included, however, because their costs affect the overall financing plan and the anticipated 1997
bond sale.
In conjunction with the water supply purchase is the need for constructing transmission mains
for delivering treated water from FCWA. The 15,000 feet of 36-inch water main (Project 1)
will deliver water to the Dulles North/Eastern Loudoun azea, while an additional 27,000 feet of
36-inch water main (Project 4) will be required to serve the Dulles South area.
Projects 3, 8 and 9 pertain to developing the water distribution system. The estimated annual
costs of Project 3 are for that portion of the distribution system not financed by developers.
Similazly, Project 8 provides for the Authority's share of the distribution system. Project 9 is for
payment to developers for installing oversized mains at the Authority's direction for serving
future connections external to the developer's subdivision.
Projects 10 and 12 each provide for the installation of a 2 1/2 million gallon elevated storage
facility for fire emergency and equalization.
Project 11 provides for additional space in the present administration building in Leesburg,
Virginia; Project 19, also for additional space, is for construction of a new building in Sterling
Pazk.
Project 13 is for purchase of land for siting an anticipated sewage treatment plant expected to be
constructed in 1997 under Project 17. Other projects for the sewer system provide for
construction of the Occoquan Pumpover project in three phases. The Occoquan Pumpover
project consists of a series of sewage lift stations, force mains, and gravity sewers for
transferring sewage from the Occoquan watershed to the Washington D.C. Blue Plains
Treatment Plant through the Potomac Interceptor.
C-4
aurns 8 M~~onnQli
Loudoun County Sanitation Authority
February 10, 1989
THE FINANCING PLAN
The financing plan is influenced by potential fluctuations in annual income from av
charges which will correspond to variances in the number of annual connections. The of lability
these variations will be offset by anticipated bond sales and projected changes in utilit fects of
To ensure that the long range Capital Improvements Pro y rates.
income requirements for the 10-year period were analyzed under three differentt onditions9of
assumed growth. In all three cases of analysis, initial funding was provided by the 1989 bon
sale for $40,585,000. d
The base case analyzes the result on income, expenses and other cash needs when
growth in
water and sewer customers is 800 accounts per year beginning in 1989. This level of increase
falls between the historical 10-yeaz statistical trend of 618 connections per year and th
e recent 5-
year statistical trend of 1008 connections per year and is conservative when com aced t
expected growth rates. In this case, a bond sale in the amount of $9.62 million will be necess o
in 1991, and a future bond sale for $87,1 g million will be necessary in 1997. The rat ~
adopted by the Authority aze based on this case. es for 1989
Case 2 assumes that the water and sewer systems will grow as expected by 900 to 13
per year. In this case, no bond sale will be necessary in 1991, and $70.83 million in bonds w 11
be sold in 1997.
Case 3 analyzes the low growth condition where the number of accounts after 1989 will
by only 400 accounts per year through 1998. This is the least ln~'ease
the Capital Improvements Program as planned and shown on b e tl . t Th SuPa ertW 11 r need for
bond sale in 1991 for $27.495 million and another in 1997 for $105.815 million. equire a
Table 2 summarizes the three cases and shows the effect of variation in growth on t
he level of
coverage of debt service as well as on the volumes of water purchased and sold, and on the
volume of sewage treated. The differences in
affect income from availability charges. Chan~esvin salesl acid batmen t vo umeswill directly
will affect
annual income and expenses. Subsequent analysis of income requirements under these thr
possible growth conditions shows that rates must be adjusted to accommodate the resul • ee
differences in cash or income requirements throughout the period of the Capital Im rov ling
Program.
p ements
For the three cases analyzed, only the growth in the level of connections and its resultin
aze assumed to vary. Other assumptions remained constant for all cases. Bond interestcis
assumed at 8 percent. Interest income from the Debt Service Reserve Fund and the Ra
Stabilization Fund is assumed at 8 percent while other Interest Income is assumed at to
Priorities on income and restrictions on debt service coverage were considered in ac percent.
with the provisions of the Indenture of Trust ,dated February 1, 1989. cordance
C-5
___
r ~ rte---- t
3urns 8 M~i~nnvll
Loudoun County Sanitation Authority February 10, 1989
INCOME REQUIREMENTS
Estimating future income required each year involved forecasting of expenses and capital costs.
Forecasts in general are based on the record of past increases, the assumed growth of the
systems and the terms of the bond covenants.
Forecasts of Expenses
The line items in the Authority's financial reports for expenses were analyzed and forecasted
individually. Table 3 shows the record of major expense items for 1987 and 1988 and the
forecast of these items through 1998 under the assumption that 800 permits will be issued and
800 new accounts will be added each yeaz.
The forecasted expense of water purchased and sewage disposed takes into account the increased
sales volume induced by additional accounts and an escalated unit cost of the respective supply
and disposal services. These expenses will vary according to system growth.
Personal Services are expected to increase by 20 percent in 1989; the rate of increase is expected
to decline gradually to 10 percent by 1991 and remain at that level thereafter. Contractual
services aze expected to increase by 50 percent in 1989 and by 5 percent each year thereafter.
The increases in these expense items are caused principally by general inflationary trends and
are not in a direct proportion to system growth.
Forecasted expenses aze allocated between water and sewer utilities in the same proportion as
recorded in the 1988 financial reports.
Forecasts of Capital Costs
Capital costs of the study include all costs except operating and maintenance expenses. The
most prominent of capital costs aze debt service, renewals and replacements, and the purchase o
capacity from FCWA to be funded from revenues. Debt service is projected in accordance with
the debt financing plan for each of the three study cases. The amounts for renewals and
replacements aze the same for cases 1 and 2 and are reduced for case 3, the low growth
condition. The schedule of renewals and replacements is in accordance with a plan developed
by Burns & McDonnell that takes into account the yearly additions to depreciable fixed plant
created by the Capital Improvements Program. The assumed annual cost of purchased capacit~~
from FCWA is shown in Table 1, Project 2. "
C-6
Burns 8 M~DonnQl!
Loudoun County Sanitation Authority
February 10, 1989
Except for renewals and replacements, capital costs were divided between water and sewer
utilities according to the costs of water and sewer projects in the Capital Improvements
Program. Renewals and replacements were divided according to total investment in depreciable
water and sewer facilities.
Forecasts of Income
Income from fees, chazges and investments constitute 40 to 50 percent of all income to the
Authority. Forecasting of income from these sources is necessary to determine future cash
required from rates.
Income from Water Services is derived from wholesale water services, private fire protection
and construction water. Income from Sewer Services is derived from sewer bulk chazges and
wholesale sewer services. Other Water (and Sewer) Chazges are applied principally to water
and sewer permits while Other Operating Revenue is derived from account charges, turn
on/collection fees, plan review and inspection fees. Income from these items were forecast by
escalating at four percent to account for inflation.
Interest income is forecasted to be 8 percent of the Debt Service Reserve Fund and the Rate
Stabilization Fund, both of which aze established by the Master Indenture of Trust. Other
Interest Income is forecasted to be 6 percent of Special Redemption and General Reserve Funds.
Income from Availability Charges is forecasted on the basis of the estimated number of accounts
added each year as well as the increase in the Availability Charge per connection.
RATE DESIGN AND FEASIBILITY
The rates adopted for 1989 are designed to produce the necessary revenues when 800 accounts
are added to the system during the year. Cash requirements for water and sewer are separately
analyzed in order to provide a basis for rate design of each utility. Table 4 shows the effect of
the 1989 water rate on income and cash flow. The Table also shows a 5-year cash flow for the
water utility when water rates are increased annually to furnish the required revenues. Table 5
shows corresponding cash flows for the sewer utility. Note that under the terms of the rate
covenants, water rates yield Net Operating Revenues each year that are greater than necessary
for debt service coverage while sewer rates do not cover the sewer portion of debt service until
1993. Combined revenues, however, are adequate in all years.
Table 6 shows the cash flow for the combined water and sewer utilities over the ten year
planning period when rates are increased to support the cash requirements for a growth
condition of 800 new accounts per year. Jebt service coverage from Net Operating Revenues in
combination with the Rate Stabilization Fund is sufficient in all years.
C-7
'FOP' ~~ti~ ~^^~•
3urns 8 M~~vnneli
Loudoun County Sanitation Authority
February 10, 1989
A portion of the surplus shown on Table 6 is allocated to the Special Redemption Fund for early
retirement of certain teen bonds. The balance of the surplus is allocated to the General Reserve
Fund for, among other purposes, annual equity support of the Capital Improvements Pro ar.:.
This use is in accordance with the terms of the financing ~
Application of the surplus and flow of funds is shown on Table 7 nFordsimplic tdy of explanation,
Table 7 shows cash flow through these two funds as though both were combined.
Referring to Table 7, the beginning balance of $13 million in 1989 is deposited to the General
Reserve Fund from the Authority's accrued savings. The equity contribution of $11 million
flows out of the fund to fill the Debt Service Reserve and Rate Stabilization Funds and furnish
capitalized interest during 1989 and 1990. The same use is made of the equity contribution in
1991. In 1997, the equity contribution fills the aforementioned funds to the required level, but
does not contribute to capitalized interest. The line item Capital Investment represents cash
payments from revenues for the projects, including capacity entitlements, in the Capital
Improvements Program.
ANALYSIS OF OTHER GROWTH CONDITIONS
Income Requirements under the other growth conditions of cases 2 and 3 previously described
are demonstrated by the cash flows for the combined water and sewer utilities in Table 8 and 9.
Table 8 shows revenues and cash flow under conditions of expected growth of 1300 fallin to
900 accounts per year. Table 9 shows revenues and cash flow under the low growth condition of
400 accounts per year after 1989. For purposes of analysis, adopted rates for 1989 and the
proposed increase for 1990 were assumed operative for these two years. Rates were changed
during subsequent years to generate the required revenues dictated by cash requirement.
Projected Net Revenues in each case are sufficient in all years to provide the debt service
coverage required by the Indenture of Trust. The revenues from rates and the income iron;
availability charges will satisfy ail cash requirements and support the financing plan applicable
to each growth condition.
SUMMARI'
Table 10 summarizes the scope of the feasibility stud showing
well as water sales and proposed rates for water and sewer, and for the ~tilitie,o together as a~
composite. The schedules of rate increases shown will su
Improvements Program under the three conditions of growth. Ifpgrowthhoccu0rsvasrexpepteaj
(Case 2), rate increases will be less than necessary under the rate design analysis. If growth
slows (Case 3), rate increases will be greater than under the rate design analysis.
C-8
0urns 8 M~~7onnQ11
Loudoun County Sanitation Authority
February 10, 1989
CONCLUSION
1 • The Capital Improvements Program, to be funded in part from the proceeds of the
1989 Bonds, is technically sound and conforms with good engineering practice.S The
Capital Improvements Program provides for water and sewer system expansion to meet
the growing demands of the Authority's service azea.
2• Proceeds of the Series 1989 Bonds, in conjunction with anticipated availabili
reserves, and surplus system earnings aze estimated to be sufficient to fund a substantial
portion of the program for water and wastewater capital improvements at least to the
year 1991. Additional bond financing may be required in 1991 to complete the fundin
of the program of water and wastewater improvement, if growth in connections does not
occur as expected.
3• The Water and Wastewater Systems have been well operated and maintained.
4• The existing management and staff aze qualified to operate the water and was
systems. tewater
5• Projection of revenues and expenses is appropriate and reasonable for the W
Wastewater Systems. Revenues and other income should support all cash re u~me nd
and provide for debt service coverage according to the requisite bond gCOVenants
established by the Indenture of Trust.
Sincerely,
/s/ W. N. Marshall, P.E.
Rate Consultant
/s/ John A. Price, P.E.
Project Manager
C-9
i
}~
OAF ANMF
~ L
ti ~
Z
2
a
18 ,~50' 88
~~S~UICENTENN~~~
A Bcau~i~u/BcgrnninR
Al t ~ AMEMCII G1
~t~t~ of ,~~
~~~~~
1979
1989
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
ELMER C. HODGE
Mr. Monty Plymale
7349 LaMarre Drive
Hollins, VA 24019
Dear Mr. Plymale:
June 14, 1990
RICHARD W. BORERS. CtuuRMA
GV[ EtHtIP10 MI018'TLRIµ, OKTwK
STEVEN A. MCGRAW, VK~•CH/URMA
GTAW0/1 MAOtEiTERU1L pISTRK
LEE B. EDo
WINDSOR MILI.f MAGt6TERUt [MSTRK
BOB L. JOE~NSOI
NOl.LMB MAOt3TERUIL fXSTRIC
HARRY C. NIQCEN!
VINTON MAGISTERIAL DtSTRK'
The Board of Supervisors have asked me to express on their behalf
their sincere appreciation for your previous service to the
Virginia Western Community College Board. Citizens so responsive
to the needs of their community and willing to give of themselves
and their time are indeed all too scarce.
This is to advise that at their meeting held on Tuesday, June 12,
1990, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to reappoint you
as a member of the Virginia Western Community College Board for a
four-year term. Your term will expire on June 30, 1994.
State law provides that any person elected, re-elected, or
appointed to any body be furnished a copy of the Freedom of
Information Act; your copy is enclosed. We are also sending you
a copy of the Conflict of Interest Act. Both of these acts were
amended by the Virginia General Assembly in July, 1989.
On behalf of the Supervisors and the citizens of Roanoke County,
please accept our sincere thanks and appreciation for your
willingness to accept this appointment.
Sincerely,
~.
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
MHA/bj h
Enclosures
pc: Dr. Charles Downs, President
Virginia Western Community College
P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2004
F
o`~ a~~
~ ~' L
2 ~
0 2
a
~~ $ ~E50) 88 Q
S~SQUICENTENN~P~
A Beautiful8eginnin~
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
ELMER C. HODGE
June 14, 1990
Lt. Delton R. Jessup
3704 Buckingham Drive, S. W.
Roanoke, VA 24018
Dear Lt. Jessup:
BOARD OF SUPERVISOF
RICHARD W. ROBERS. CHAIRM~
GVE SPRING MAGISTERAL gSTRi
STEVEN A. MCGRAW. VICE•CHAIRM~
CATAWBA MAGISTERAL gSTRI
LEE B. EDI
WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERALL DISTRI
808 L. JOHNSC
HOLLJNS MAGISTERIAL DISTRI
HARRY C. NICKED
VINTON MAGISTERALL DISTRF
The Board of Supervisors have asked me to express on their behalf
their sincere appreciation for your previous service to the
Transportation and Safety Commission. Citizens so responsive to
the needs of their community and willing to give of themselves and
their time are indeed all too scarce.
This is to advise that at their meeting held on Tuesday, June 12,
1990, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to reappoint you
as a member of the Transportation and Safety Commission
representing the State Police for a four-year term. Your term will
expire on April 1, 1994.
State law provides that any person' elected, re-elected, or
appointed to any body be furnished a copy of the Freedom of
Information Act; your copy is enclosed. We are also sending you
a copy of the Conflict of Interest Act. Both of these acts were
amended by the Virginia General Assembly in July, 1989.
On behalf of the Supervisors and the citizens of Roanoke County,
please accept our sincere thanks and appreciation for your
willingness to accept this appointment.
Sincerely,
rnG~, ~.
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
MHA/bj h
Enclosures
pc: Capt. D. Art LaPrade, Chairman
Al lAll A~.
~ ~~~~~
~~~~~ ~a~
.~~r~nu~
1979
1989
P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2004
F
o~ a~~
~ L
~ p
Z
0 2
a
18 ~E50 88
S~sQU1CENTENNIP~
A Btawi~ulBe~mnin~
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
ELMER C. HODGE
Mr. William
4349 Cordell
Roanoke, VA
June 14, 1990
J. Skelton, Jr.
Drive
24018
Dear Mr. Skelton:
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
RICHARD W. ROBERS, CHAIRM/
GVE SPRING MACiBTERUI. pSTitN
STEVEN A. MCGRAW. VICE•CHAIRMA
UTAWBA MAGISTERIAL gSTRN
LEE B. EDC
WINgiOR MILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRI(
BOB L. JOHNSO
HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL gSTRK
HARRY C. NICKEN
VINTON MAGISTERIAL gSTRK
The Board of Supervisors have asked me to express on their behalf
their sincere appreciation for your previous service to the Parks
& Recreation Advisory Commission. Citizens so responsive to the
needs of their community and willing to give of themselves and
their time are indeed all too scarce.
This is to advise that at their meeting held on Tuesday, June 12,
1990, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to reappoint you
as a member of the Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission for a
three-year term. Your term will expire on June 30, 1993.
State law provides that any person elected, re-elected, or
appointed to any body be furnished a copy of the Freedom of
Information Act; your copy is enclosed. We are also sending you
a copy of the Conflict of Interest Act. Both of these acts were
amended by the Virginia General Assembly in July, 1989.
On behalf of the Supervisors and the citizens of Roanoke County,
please accept our sincere thanks and appreciation for your
willingness to accept this appointment.
Sincerely,
'~Z czl~~- ~/,
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
MHA/bjh
Enclosures
pc: Mr. Steve Carpenter, Director, Parks & Recreation
AllAll A~
~ ~~~~~
C~u~n~ ~~
,~u~n~r
~~
1979
1989
P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2004
O~ POAN ~.~
a
ti p
Z
J ?
a
18 ,E50 88
S~SQUICENTENH~P~
A Beauti~ulBeRinnirrnK
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
ELMER C. HODGE
All AMERICA 1
~ ~ ~~~~~
~ ~n~ u~
.~u~
n~~~e
1979
1989
June 14, 1990
BOARD OF SUPERVISOf
RICHARD W. ROBERS. CHAIRM
UVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL CNSTR
STEVEN A. MCGRAW. VICE•CHAIRM,
UTAWEiA MAGISTERAL CNSTR
LEE B. ED
WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERALL DISTR
BOB L. JOHNS(
HOLLJNS MAGISTERIAL OISTRI
HARRY C. NICKEL
VINTON MAGISTERIAL CNSTRI
The Honorable Lee B. Eddy
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
2211 Pommel Drive
Roanoke, VA 24018
Dear Mr. Eddy:
The Board of Supervisors have asked me to express on their behalf
their sincere appreciation for your previous service to the Fifth
Planning District Commission. Citizens so responsive to the needs
of their community and willing to give of themselves and their time
are indeed all too scarce.
This is to advise that at their meeting held on Tuesday, June 12,
1990, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to reappoint you
as a member of the Fifth Planning District Commission representing
elected officials for a three-year term. Your term will expire on
June 30, 1993.
State law provides that any person elected, re-elected, or
appointed to any body be furnished a copy of the Freedom of
Information Act; your copy is enclosed. We are also sending you
a copy of the Conflict of Interest Act. Both of these acts were
amended by the Virginia General Assembly in July, 1989.
On behalf of the Supervisors and the citizens of Roanoke County,
please accept our sincere thanks and appreciation for your
willingness to accept this appointment.
Sincerely,
~-
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
MHA/bj h
Enclosures
pc: Mr. Wayne Strickland, Fifth Planning District Commission
P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2004
O~ pOANp,I.~
~ ,A
2 p
0 2
a
18 Es~ 88
s~SQU1CENTENN~P~
A Beauti ful Bc~innin~
AII~AMERICA LI7
C~ttlt '~il~
~t~ u~ ~~~n~~~
1979
1989
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
ELMER C. HODGE
Mr. Ralph H. Reed
3486 Mt. Pleasant Road
Roanoke, VA 24014
Dear Mr. Reed:
June 14, 1990
RICHARD W. ROBERS. CHAIRMA
CAVE SF~RING MAGISTERIAL DISTRI<
STEVEN A. MCGRAW, VICE-CHAIRMA.
CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL OISTRIC
LEE B. EDD
WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRIC
BOB L..IOHNS01
HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRIC
HARRY C. NICKEN:
VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRIC
At their regular meeting on Tuesday, June 12, 1990, the Roanoke
County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the request of the
Roanoke County AMVETS post 92 for a raffle permit. The raffle will
be conducted on August 11, 1990.
The fee has been paid and your receipt is enclosed.
You may consider this letter to be your permit, and I suggest it
be displayed on the premises where the raffle is to be conducted.
The State Code provides that raffle and bingo permits be issued on
a calendar-year basis and such permits issued will expire on
December 31, 1990. This permit, however, is only valid on the date
specified in your application.
PLEASE READ YOUR APPLICATION CAREFULLY. YOU HATE AGREED TO
COMPLY WITH STATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS AND FAILURE TO COMPLY
MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND REVOKING OF YOUR PERMIT.
YOU MUST FILE A FINANCIAL REPORT BYNOVEMBER I OF EACH CALENDAR
YEAR. PLEASE SUBM/T A NEW APPLICATION AT LEAST 60 DAYS PRIOR TO
DATE OR DATES YOUR ORCAN/ZATIONPLANS TO HOLD BINGO OR RAFFLES.
PERMITS EXPIRE ON DECEMBER 31 OF EACH CALENDAR YEAR.
If I may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to
contact me at 772-2003.
Sincerely,
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
bjh Roanoke County Board of Supervisor
Enclosures
cc: Commissioner of the Revenue
Commonwealth Attorney
County Treasurer
P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2004
o~ aoaroo,~
F
> A ~ G
'`' A
_ ~_
J 2
a
18 <E50` 88
SFSGUICENTENN)P~
d Brnuti~ul8cr;innin4
All AMfRICAC
C~ulzrt~ ~ ~ ~~II~
~ ,~~~nu
~ ~~
1979
1989
BOARD OF SUPERVISOF
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
ELMER C. HODGE
June 14, 1990
Rev. Fleet Powell
Colonial Presbyterian Church
3550 Poplar Drive, S.W.
Roanoke, VA 24018
Dear Reverend Powell:
RICHARD W. ROaERS. CHAIRM/
GAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRI
STEVEN A. MCGRAW. VICE-CHAIRM~
CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRN
LEE B. EDC
WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRI<
BOB L. JOHNSO
HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRI(
HARRY C. NICKEN
VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRIC
On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, I would like to take this
opportunity to let you know of our appreciation for your attending
the meeting on Tuesday, June 12, 1990, to offer the invocation.
We feel it is most important to ask God's blessing on these
meetings so that all is done according to His will and for the good
of all citizens.
Thank you for sharing your time with us.
bjh
Sincerely,
Richar W. Robers, Chairman
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772.2004
MEMO - 6/11/90
To: Supervisors, E1 er Hodge, Paul- Mahoney, Mary Allen
From: Lee B. Edd
Subject: Additional Agenda Items, 6/12/90
In addition to a discussion of the Consolidation Agreement
amendments, described in another memo, I would like to raise the
following agenda items during our 6/12/90 Board meeting:
F.l: Request a joint work session with the Planning Commission and
staff to discuss goals and a work program for the coming fiscal
year.
L.1: Request a report on County options for enacting a no-smoking
ordinance, based on 1990 state legislation.
0.5: Discussion regarding the report on a study of County
Operations.
0.6 Discussion regarding the report on a Greenway Plan.
MEMO - 6/11/90
To: Supervisors, Elmer Hodge, Paul Mahoney, Mary Allen
From: Lee B. Eddy
Subject: Adding a Consolidation Item to the 6/12/90 Agenda
Paul Mahoney has given us, in a separate envelope with the agenda
package, a copy of the legal ad and proposed amendments to the
Consolidation Agreement as requested by the Board at the adjourned
meeting on 5/29/90. He also included a proposed agreement addendum
dealing with school personnel assignments.
It was my understanding that the Board intended to review and/or
ratify this material after it was prepared in detailed form.
Therefore, I suggest that an item be added to the agenda for the
6/12/90 Board meeting for this purpose. If any changes are
necessary in the advertisement, I understand there will still be
time for publication on four successive weeks prior to the
scheduled public hearing date on July 10.
I suggest the ad could be more descriptive regarding the Catawba
District area entitled to a second vote.
Under the proposed amendments, the WITNESSETH statement refers to
Section 12, Section 19, and Exhibit E (potential boundary
adjustment with Salem), but there is no further mention of Exhibit
E in the body of the amendment. I would ask Mr. Mahoney to check
and comment on this possible inadvertent omission.
MEMO - 6/11/90
To: Supervisors, E1 er Hodge, Paul Mahoney, Mary Allen
From: Lee B. Edd
Subject: Additional Agenda Items, 6/12/9
In addition to a discussion of the Consolidation Agreement
amendments, described in another memo, I would like to raise the
following agenda items during our 6/12/90 Board meeting:
F.1: Request a joint work session with the Planning Commission and
staff to discuss goals and a work program for the coming fiscal
year.
L.1: Request a report on County options for enacting a no-smoking
ordinance, based on 1990 state legislation.
0.5: Discussion regarding the report on a study of County
Operations.
0.6 Discussion regarding the report on a Greenway Plan.
r
pF PCANC'fF
a
~ A
Z
a
18 E50 88
SFSQUICENTENN~P~
A Beautiful Beginning
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
ELMER C. HODGE
May 24, 1990
Mr. Sim Ewing, Director
Southwest Virginia Office
Center for Public Service
University of Virginia
College Avenue
Wise, Virginia 24293-0016
Dear Sim:
BOARD OF SUPERVISOF
RICHARD W. BORERS. CHAIRM
GVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTR
STEVEN A. MCGRAW. VICE-CHAIRM,
GTAWBA MAGISTERAL DISTR
LEE B. ED
WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRI
BOB L..10HNSC
HOW NS MAGISTERIAL DISTRI
HARRY C. NIC.KE~
VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRN
I appreciate your interest in working with Roanoke County for
a peer review of operations. I think ..this is an exciting
possibility. We have no format in mind, but perhaps this could be
similar to the peer reviews conducted by schools in Virginia. We
would welcome any suggestions that you might have regarding format.
As for the scope of work, I think the Board of Supervisors is
willing to support a project in the vicinit of
suggestion from the Board was to have top level stafflsuch Oas youe
from other localities, be a part of the review. There are no
problem areas that are of concern to the Board, and they have given
staff considerable flexibility in conducting the study.
It would probably take three days of on-site review with staff
and Board members, plus the time to prepare and present a report.
It may be necessary to concentrate on select departments each year
and have this as an ongoing process, as it is done with the school
system, and make it an annual event.
Our next step should be to prepare a proposal and, for your
information, I am sending a copy of our latest Annual Report. I
will take this matter to the Board on June 12. If they wish to
pursue it, we can meet to define the scope and finalize the plan
and fee.
Atl ~AMFRIU
~i~~Yi~ ~ ~~I I~
~~ ,~u~
~ ~u~.~
1979
1989
P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 • (703> 772.2004
a.
Mr. Sim Ewing
Page 2
May 24, 1990
If you have any questions, please call me.
Very truly yours,
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
ECH/meh
Enclosure
qi`°~,'/' Department of the Treasury
~Ii Internal Revenue Service
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19255
AMERICAN VETERANS OF WORLD WA.R II
92 AMVETS
3486 MT PLEASANT BLVD
ROANOKE VA 24014
DATE OF THIS NOTICE= 10-13-89 CP 578 -
EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER= 54-1516198
TAX PERIOD ENDING= N/A
28083366 0
For assistance you may
call us at:
649-2361 LOCAL RICHMON;
1-800-424-1040 OTHER V.
Or you may write to us at the address
shown at the left. If you write, be
sure to attach the bottom part of this
form.
TAX FORMS YOU MUST FILE=
Notice of New Employer Identification Number (EIN) Assigned
Thank you for your Form SS-4, Application for Employer Identlflcation Number. The number assigned to you Is shown above. This number will be
used to identify your business account and related tax returns and documents, even it you do not have employees,
1. Keep a copy of this number In your permanent records.
2. Use this number and your name exactly as shown above, on all Federal tax forms,
3. Use this number on all tax payments and tax related correspondence or documents,
Entity Information includes your EIN, business name, trade name, street address, city, state and ZIP code. When filing tax documents or making FTD
payments, it is Important to use the IRS prepared label and/or coupon. However, if this is not possible, your EIN and complete information as shown
below must be used to properly identify your account and avoid processing delays (for I RS mailing purposes your account will appear as shown above),
If for any reason this information is not correct, please return the bottom portion of this notice Indicating the changes.
AMERICAN VETERANS OF WORLD WAR II
92 AMVETS
RALPH H REED
3486 MT PLEASANT BLVD
ROANOKE VA 24014
I f you are a trust, your tax year generally must be a calendar year, unless you are exempt from taxation under section 501(e) of the Internal Revenue
Code or a charitable trust described in section 49d7(a)(1) of the Code. A partnership must conform Its tax year to either its majority partners, Its princi-
ple partners, or a calendar year, in that order, unless it can establish a business purpose for using a different year. Personal service corporation must have
a required year for its tax year unless it can establish a business purpose for using a different year. See Publication 538, Accounting Periods and Methods,
for a tuller discussion on the required year, including exceptions to the requirements. This publication is available at most IRS offices for more informa-
tion.
If you are required to make Federal tax deposits for employment taxes (Forms 941, 943, 940 or CT-1 ), excise taxes (Form 720), and/or incorne taxes
{r'orms i 12G, 990-C, 990-T, ur S30-F.'), vva have rcquo_ted art ini-!al sc^~!y or Federal tax denn:it coupon books for you. Please allow 5 to 6 weeks for
delivery. If you are not required to make Federal tax deposits, please disregard the enclosed Form 8109-B, Federal Tax Deposit Coupon.
Please note that the assignment of this number does not grant tax-exempt status to nonprofit organization>. Any organization (other than a private
foundation) hav(ng annual gross receipts normally of 525,000 or less (s exempt by statute if It meets the requirements of Section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code. These organizations are not required to file Form 1023 (Application for Recognition of Exemption) or file Form 990 (Return of Organi-
zation Exempt from Income Tax). However, if the organization wants to establish its exemption with the Internal Revenue Service and receive a ruling or
determinatlon letter recognizing its exempt status, it should file Form 1023 with the key district director. For details on how to apply for this exemption,
see IRS Publication 557, Tax-Exempt Status for your Organization, available at most IRS offices.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Keep this part for your records.
Form 8503 (Rev. 5-88)
---------------------------
---------------------------
my return this part with your correspondonce if you Return this part with your Form SS-4
heve any questions so we may identify your account.
Please correct any errors In your name or address.
CP 578
2anR~~~~
,;:, i
,~,; rri~~la~~l!~~t1j~`' C~~
_)t~ u~r
'1ltiltfi~d~d tVOf"~11~ s~1"1V~C•
~1,~~ ,~
=7 ~ ~ ~3~~23~~41
t: a r.
,lil?f :) ~ G TLS I In .rfxfy ratrr to.
ABETS ~Araerican Veterans of
world War II)
AANETS National Headquarters
4647 Forbes Boulevard
__ Lanham, Maryland 20706
Gent 1 ems n s (:~t~l) 459-9~6Op
Ye have considered
group ezemption of ~ Your application to slodif
siz additional Cate Y 22, 1945, to the extent op h Your
namely= A~-rygT•S De goriea of your subordinate oldin,~
AIyy~S Partment Service Foundationsorganizations;
Auxiliariee~TA Department Convention Corporationau Alyy
from Federal inc me taz packs, and A ED'S
organizat~nssdescri eds; exempt
SO1(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 19 4
in sectioe,
In our ruling dated Ma 5
under your former name A Y 22' 1945, addressed to you
yOU""anQ your subordinate merick~n -Veterans of World War IY,
at that time were he Posts appearing on lists s
taz
under the ld to be exempt from Fedora ubmit tea
Revenue Code o~rivisions of sectio4 101 8 l income
Revenue Code °f 939, now section 0 ( ) of the Internal
1954• On Februar 5 1(c)(4) of the Internal
You. under your present name Y l5~ 1954, we issued to
by rs!'ersnce our rulin ' a ruling which incorporated
subordinate de g °f MaY 22, 1945, and which held
on the lists submittedsexe istricts and Yo~jr
mPt under sectionolpl appearing
1939 Code, now sect ion 0 (8) of the
basis of information thstl (c) (4) of the 1954 Code,
the lists of a You have 'u On the
have been brow°hts' departments PPlied periodically,
6 up to date and weshavets and councils
ruling• holding those issued
ourrent subordinates eXempt~Pplementary
Based on the information su
subordinate AMVET Department ServiceiFd' we rule th
ABETS, AMVET`S De oundationa at Your
Auziliariea A Partment Convention Corporationa~Juni~S
in the ' ~'~ Sad Sacks, and AMVET Sackettes A~
from Federal inc meitaxroster yOU submitted are named
under section Spl(c) 4 exempt
( ) of the
t
1700 CAPRI BOWRIDER
Here's the smartest investment you can make in family fun. ~ i ~
The spirited 1700 Capri Bowrider is complete with a long list of il~~ I
big-boat features, like AM/FM cassette stereo, custom swim
platform and convertible top. There's generous lounge seating ~I ~ I ill .~ T
forward, twin sleeper seats, custom instrumentation, and per- ~ I
formance to spare, thanks to the standard electric-start Force
50 outboard.
Its eye-catching profile and styling accents look great on or
off the standard Escort trailer. The 1700 tows effortlessly-even
behind smaller cars-and stores in virtually any garage.
., ~
-. ~ ,
~•- *,~. ,
~_. ~ _ =r»;.a
-m~;
;.
COMPARE STANDARD tc.2uirmtly i ...
with Bayliner, you always get more
^ Force 50 outboard with CD ignition
^ 17-foot custom Escort trailer
^ Integral transom platform
^ AM/FM cassette stereo
^ High-performance Sequential Lift Hull with Delta step pad
^ Two custom contoured sleeper seats
^ Navigation lights
^ Unitized construction with hand-laid fiberglass
(See pages 26-27 for detailed specifications and equipment fisting)
~,(,~%,(,~9TP; ~3s f
Cb~~ F,`~~xT
~~i~~tr /80°°
~~~~ ~~z y i~~
Ylfv ~ ///~ ~
~~~ '`~`,~~~
~~~~~G~~~>°
~,E'~j~'``j ~~ ~
,~.~x~~~~~ ~~ ~- SPECIFICATIONS
Centerline length
Beam
Approx. wt. w/std. eng.
Fuel capacity 1700
16'7" (5.17m)
1040 Ibs (472kg)
6 gal (22L) carry on
~ ~ ~y.
Items for June 12, 1990 Board Meeting
From the Department of Finance
I.New Business
A.Request for Additional Office Space
B.Memorandum of Agreement between the County and Schools
concerning the Finance operations ( I am trying to convince
the Attorney's office that this doesn't need to be an Board
item)
C.Request from VML/VACO for an assessment to cover legal
expenses related to APCO negotiations
II.Reports
A.Reserve for Board Contingency
B.General Fund Unappropriated Balance
C.Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance
III.Worksessions
A.Spring Hollow Reservoir
w
ACTION #
ITEM NUMBER
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: June 12, 1990
AGENDA ITEM: Survey of Development Related Fees;
Six Virginia Localities
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
BACKGROUND
At the May 22, 1990 Board meeting the Board asked for
information on review fees charged by other jurisdictions.
Attached is a summary of the Development related fees charged by
six other Virginia localities.
The Development Tnspection staff surveyed these localities to
ascertain the level of fees charged, and the basis for these fees.
A number of the localities indicated that their fees were based on
recovering a percentage of their direct and indirect costs, however
most of the localities were not aware of the exact percentage.
The Development related fees proposed for Roanoke County are
based upon a policy of recovering 100% of the direct and indirect
cost associated with these activities. The proposed fees are:
Site Plan Review
Small Subdivision Review
Large Subdivision Review
Erosion/Sediment Control
Plan Review
Subdivision Waiver/Variance
Vacation of Subdivision Plat and
Easements
$685 + $40 per acre
$25
$220 + $45 per lot or
parcel
$100 + $100 per acre
or portion thereof
$190
$190
SUBMITTED BY:
~..~ ~ h-~I`L- ~ C'~ ~~' 6--~~LC ~
- - ------
Arnold Covey
Development and Inspections
Director
APPROVED BY:
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
--------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved ( ) t' b No Yes Abs
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred
To
Mo ion y.
Eddy
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
Robers
ACTION #
ITEM NUMBER
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: June 12, 1990
AGENDA ITEM: Second Reading of the Ordinance Imposing or
Increasing User Fees for the Parks and Recreation
Department
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
BACKGROUND: The Department of Management and Budget hired a
consultant to perform a limited User Fee Study. David M. Griffith
& Associates, LTD. (DMG) completed their review of existing and
potential new fees, in February 1990, in the following departments:
• Development and Inspections
• Planning and Zoning
• Solid Waste
• Parks and Recreation
• Jail
• Police
• Fire
The objectives of the Study were to calculate the full costs of
providing specific services, to compare these costs with the
revenues currently received for theses services, and to recommend
fee levels to recover the full costs of services when such fees are
practical.
A service for which a user fee is charged can be viewed as the time
and/or materials costs paid by a governmental agency on behalf of
a private citizen or group. Full costs developed for services
rendered include direct labor costs, divisional and departmental
supervision and administration, and supplies and materials costs.
All appropriate indirect costs allocated from County central
services, such as accounting, budgeting and data processing, to the
departmentlor division performing the service under review are also
included.
The principle of user fees dictates that those who use a service
pay for the cost of producing the service. Although this principle
is firmly established in the private enterprise system, there may
be cases of County activities for which it is not regarded as
appropriate. It may be desirable to set fees for some services
below full cost depending on the circumstances.
Subsidies are often provided for two basic purposes. The first is
to permit an identified group to participate in services which they
might not otherwise be able to afford. This is a legitimate
function of government, assuring access to importantzservices to
all citizens without regard to their ability to pay.
A second type of subsidy is based on the perception of the ultimate
beneficiary of the service. Many County activities, by their
nature, provide benefits beyond the immediate recipient of the
service. Therefore, it may be regarded as appropriate to spread
the cost of certain services over the large base of p3tential
beneficiaries, as opposed to only the direct recipients.
For purposes of generating new revenue for the 1990-91 fiscal year
budget, staff has recommended the implementation of only three of
the fee areas originally identified for study. These include
Development and Inspections, Planning and Zoning and Parks and
Recreation.
SUNIlKARY OF INFORMATION: The attached ordinance, authorizing the
increase of user fees in the area of Parks and Recreation, is a
policy statement outlining the level at which the Board of
Supervisors will subsidize our Parks and Recreation programs in the
following areas:
• Community Education
• Leisure Arts
• Outdoor Adventure
• Senior Citizens
• Special Events
• Therapeutics
• Adult Athletics
• Youth Athletics
Briefly, the policy regarding Parks and Recreation program cost
recovery through user fees is as follows:
1. Community Education, Leisure Arts,
Outdoor Adventure, Adult Athletics
2. Youth Athletics
3. Special Events
4. Therapeutics
5. Senior Citizens
$5 Registration Fee
Per Event; 25~
Indirect Costs; 100
Direct Costs
$5 Registration Fee
Per Event
40~ Indirect Costs
100 Direct Costs
20~ Direct Costs
$10 Membership Fee Per
Year; 100 Direct
Costs
2
The Director of the Parks and Recreation Department would be
authorized to establish fees for Parks and Recreation programs
based upon the above guidelines, subject to the approval of the
County Administrator. The above policies will be reviewed
periodically by the staff of the Department of Management and
Budget in conjunction with the budget process.
Please note that the definition of indirect costs used for Parks
and Recreation cost recovery is different than the definition used
for other departments. The indirect cost figures used for the
Parks and Recreation Department do not include approximately
$430,000 in indirect costs for central services such as accounting,
budgeting, and data processing. The degree to which volume is
affected by the fee level is referred to as the "elasticity of
demand". Fees for recreational services are likely to be highly
elastic. Therefore, staff recommends phasing in over several years
the inclusion of total indirect costs in the cost recovery
calculations outlined above.
Finally, the staff recommends including in our policy statement a
provision for a waiver or fee reduction in the case of
"demonstratable hardship" or inability to pay situations.
The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission has approved the above
policy statements concerning the proposed user fee increase for the
Department of Parks and Recreation. (See attached schedule for
additional detail).
FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact of the proposed cost recovery
policy through user fees for the Parks and Recreation Department
is an increase in revenues in the amount of $167,013. The policy
changes would be effective July 1, 1990. The revenue increase has
been included in the FY 1990-91 budget adopted by the Board of
Supervisors on May 15, 1990.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the above
stated cost recovery policy to be effective July 1, 1990 after the
second reading of the attached ordinance on June 12, 1990.
Reta R. Busher
Director of Management and
Budget
ACTION VOTE
No Yes Abs
Approved ( )
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred ( )
To
Motion by:
Eddy
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
Robers
1,2,3 Observations were take from the Consultant's Report.
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
3
pOANp
OF '~F
ti 9
2 G7
~ 2
J a
18 ~' ~ 88
SFSQUICENTENN~P~
~1 Br.tutirulBcSinnin~
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
(~o~tx~#~ of ~o~zz~n~P
June 12, 1990
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anne Marie Green
Public Information Officer
703-772-2010
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PRESS RELEASE
ROANOKE COUNTY WINS NACO AWARDS
Roanoke County Administrator Elmer Hodge announced today that
the County has been selected to receive four Achievement Awards
from the National Association of Counties. The Awards will be made
at the 1990 NACO convention in Miami in July.
Roanoke County submitted applications for the following
projects, all of which have received Awards:
• Landfill Citizens' Advisory Committee
• Custody Mediation Program
• Comprehensive Health Investment Project
• Roanoke County Today
Copies of the applications are attached.
The NACO Achievement Award program is in its 18th year, and
gives national recognition to significant, innovative activities
(more)
P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2010
that improve the organization, management or services of member
counties. The program applications become a data resource for
Association members who need information on new and innovative
programs, and how they were established.
Programs must satisfy the following criteria:
• The County must play a decisive role in the program's
development and implementation.
• The program should have been developed in response to a
particular problem or concern within the County, and must go
beyond normal means or use extraordinary effort to address the
concern.
• The program must have been in place and operational long
enough for the department to be able to evaluate results.
• The program must have proven, tangible results and evidence
of its accomplishments over a significant time period must be
clearly illustrated.
• The County should have plans for continued commitment to
the program through staffing, funding, or other means of
support.
In announcing the Awards, Mr. Hodge commented, "This is the
first time that Roanoke County has applied for the NACO Achievement
Awards, and we are very proud that all four of our applications
were successful. Once again, this is national recognition of the
innovation and imagination that we use to solve problems". Mr.
Hodge made the announcement at the 3:00 p.m. meeting of the Roanoke
County Board of Supervisors.
(end)
1990 ENTRY FORM ___ __~
Roanoke County
CO(JNTY: „~: NACo member cauntles on-y.
POPULATION:
75,000
Virginia
STATE:
$111,365,879
1989 COUNTY BUDGET:
TTTLE OF PROGRAM TO BE CONSIDERED FOR ACHIEVEMENT AWARD
(Please limit title w 60 dunacters. 1)o not include a~oty name in the p~~ title. lydiate the title at the pro~am to be coruidered far an Aclrieve-
ment Award using the exact wording you watld Woe w appear on the certificate wild your merry' win.)
Economical and Efficient Distribution of Newsletter
CATEGORIES Entries must be made in the following categories. Check only ONE category for this entry.
O Commuunity Development
O Computerization
O Criminal Justice
0 Community Services
9 County Administration and Management
O Drunken Driving Deterrence and Seat Belt Safety
O Employment and Training
O Energy and Environment
0 Fiscal Management and Use of Federal or State Funds
O Health
O Human Services
0 Juvenile Justice
O Land Use and Land Planning
O Labor Issues and Empbyee Benefits
0 Mental Health
O Media Relations
0 Older Americans
O Parks and Recreation
0 Public Safety/Fmergency Management
O Rural Programs
0 Substance Abuse Control and Initiatives
O Transportation
O Taxation and Finance
O Youth Programs
NOTE: Our list includes two general categories - Htunan Services and Community Services. We are looking for the
following information under those categories:
HUMAN SERVICES -food assistance programs; providing food/shelter for the homeless; programs to improve the service
administration of welfare or general assistance programs; quality control in welfare assistance programs; the provision of
social services such as family counseling and child care; improvements inthe management/administration of human services
Pro~•
COMMUNITY SERVICES -programs that make improvements in the county's infiastructtue, public services such as
sanitation, fire, police, etc. (innovations or improved services in any of these areas are acceptable); programs promoting the
enhancement or betterment of the community; programs designed to give citizens more input in county government.
Name, title, mailing address and phone number of county's
Chief Elected Official- the county's board chair, president,
or elected county official- and his or her signature author-
izing this entry.
Name, title, department,division, mailing address and phone
ntunber of the program contact- a person able to provide
more information to inquiring juristictions. The division
must be specified.
Richard W. Robers
Nom' Chairman of the Board
Title: P.O. Box 29800
Address:
Ci Roanoke Ste; Va
Anne Marie Green
Name: Pu lic Information Officer
Title: County Administrator's Of
Department:
Division: u i c n orma ion
ty Address: P. 0. Box 2 9 8 0 0
Zip Code: 24018 Phone: 703-772-2005
City: Roanoke Stam; Va .
Signature: ~p Cie; 2 4 018 phone: (7 0 3i 7 7 2 - 2 010
EACH E RY MUST BE S TI'TED WITH A PHOTOCOPY OF THE ENTIRE APPLICATION
1990 PROGRAM SUMMARY 1
PROBLEMICONCERN (continued)
budget year, and any method of communication which was chosen would
have to be economical, as-well as far reaching. The other Virginia
localities with newsletters were either considerably smaller than
Roanoke County, or sent them only to a small number of interested
parties. The Board believed that the only effective newsletter
would be one that went to all residents of the County and directed
the staff to pursue this objective.
SOLUTION (Describe the steps that were taker by the county/department to remedy the problem or ro address the
concern. Explain how the program's objectives wen met)
In 1987, as a result of budgetary considerations, the County
had dropped the position of Public Information Officer. The Board
now decided that the position should be re-instituted, with
responsibility for the monthly newsletter, which was called Roanoke
County Todav.
The newsletter was first published in April, 1989, and is
distributed as an insert in the Roanoke Times and World News, which
allows for a large circulation at an extremely low cost. The
newsletter looks like a small newspaper, and is presented to
citizens at a time when they are in a "reading mood" - as they look
at the daily paper.
Roanoke County Todav is four pages, and contains approximately
12 typewritten pages of text. It also has photographs, and various
type sizes to increase readability. Many topics are covered,
including those which the daily paper does not have the time or
resources to discuss.
Since there is only one daily newspaper in the Roanoke Valley,
almost all households subscribe. The paper is delivered by zoned
routes, so we were able to pick only those zones which cover County
neighborhoods, as opposed to the general circulation area.
I 1990 PROGRAM SUMMARY J
RESULTS (continued)
brochure could be used to reinforce important points, rather than
to explain the issue in detail.
The newsletter also informs County citizens on smaller
matters, such as the opening of new parks, the prize-winning police
dog at the Sheriff's Department, and the re-opening of a newly
renovated school. The taxpayers can review in detail how their tax
dollars are spent, and what services are offered to them in return.
INDEXING INDENTIFIERS
List 5 words or phrases that best de-
scnbe your program and can be used
ro index your program. These words
should be different than those used
in your program title.
For example, a program in which a county contracted with a city to
pmvide low interest renovation housing loans to low and moderate
income home owners might consist of the following identifiers:
(I) Low Interest Housin~,t~?ns
(2) Housin Rehabilitation
Substan terioratin Housin
~t governmental Partnership
(1) Public Information Officer
(2) Newsletter
(3) Communication
(4) Referenda campaigns
($) Information Distribution
1990 ENTRY FORM
COUNTY: Roanoke County
Note: NACo member counCa only.
POPULATION:
75,000
STATE: Virginia
1989 COUNTY BUDGET:
$111,365,879
TTi'LE OF PROGRAM TO BE CONSIDERED FOR ACHIEVEMENT AWARD
(Please limit title w t50 duuaaers Do not include catmty name in the ptogtam title. Indiate the title of the program to be oatsidered for an Adtieve-
merzt Award using the exact wording you would liloe to appear oa the certificate should your entry win)
Custody Mediation Program
CATEGORIES Entries must be made in the following categories. Check only ONE category for this entry.
O Community Development
O Computerization
O Criminal Justice
D Community Services
~ County Administration and Management
O Drunken Driving Deterrence and Seat Belt Safety
0 Employment and Training
O Energy and Environment
O Fiscal Management and Use of Federal or State Funds
O Health
C~Httman Services
0 Juvenile Justice
O Land Use and Land Planning
O Labor Issues and Employee Benefits
O Mental Health
0 Media Relations
0 Older Americans
0 Parks and Recreation
O Public Safety/Fmergency Management
0 Rural Programs
0 Substance Abuse Control and Initiatives
O Transportation
0 Taxation and Finance
^ Youth Programs
NOTE: Our list includes two general categories -Human Services and Community Services. We are looking for the
following information under those categories:
HUMAN SERVICES -food assistance programs; providing foodJshelter for the homeless; programs to improve the service)
administration of welfare or general assistance programs; quality control in welfare assistance programs; the provision of
social services such as family counseling and child care; improvements inthe management/administration of human services
programs.
COMMUNITY SERVICES • programs that make improvements in the county's infrastructure, public services such as
sanitation, fire, police, etc. (innovations or improved services in any of these areas are acceptable); programs promoting the
enhancement or betterment of the community; programs designed to give citizens more input in county government.
Name, title, mailing address and phone number of county's Name, title, department, division, mailing address and phone
Chief Elected Official- the county's board chair, president, number of the program contact- a person able to provide
or elected county official- and his or her signature author- more information to inquiring jttristictions. The division
izing this entry, must be specified
Name: Richard W. Robers
Tide: C airman o e oar
Address: PO Box
Name: Betty Lucas
irec or o ocia ervices
Title:
~p~~t;~~iman ~PYYI G2G
Division: Social Services
City: oano a Address:
Zip Code: Phone: _ - 7 ~ 0~ a
City: a em State:
Signature: Zip Code: Phone: (7 0$- 3 8 7- 6 2 3 7
EAC NTRY MUST BE SUB 1TTED WITH A PHOTOCOPY OF THE ENTIRE APPLICATION
1990 PROGRAM SUMMARY
PROBLEM/CONCERN (continued)
SOLUTION (Describe the steps that were taken by the county/department to remedy the problem or to address the
concern. Facplain how the program's objectives were met)
The Roanoke County Department of Social Services implemented
a custody mediation program, which uses 14 social workers as
mediators in custody and visitation matters. The program is aimed
at helping the divorcing couple to learn how to remain parents to
the children, while terminating their roles as spouse to each
other. The underlying premise of mediation is that the parents
know best about their situation and their children.
The mediation approach generally leads to a healthier post-
divorce environment for the child, as well as a longer lasting and
more satisfying agreement between the parents. Roanoke County uses
a system of co-mediation - involving two mediators in addition to
the parents. So far, a male/female team has always been available,
which offers many advantages unattainable in a single mediator
environment, i.e., sex role balance, modeling, two trained
mediators and a unified approach to problem resolution.
The agency, which also services the City of Salem, works with
couples who have been referred by the Juvenile and Domestic
Relations or Circuit Courts of each jurisdiction. The judges
involved have endorsed the program, as has the Commonwealth of
Virginia. The mediation sessions are held in one of the agency's
interview rooms, and videotape recordings are made for review
later. The mediators maintain the focus of the discussion on the
children, while helping the parents to learn their changing roles
through negotiation and compromise. When a settlement is made, it
is written, signed by both parents and mediators, and sent to the
referring court. After completion, the videotapes are erased.
There are situations where mediation is not possible - such
as where violence of over threats of violence have occurred, where
parents live far apart, or refuse to cooperate. When mediation
efforts are inappropriate or fail, the mediators report the
situation to the referring court for a tradition home study.
I 1990 PROGRAM SUMMARY i
RESULTS (continued)
Several other localities in the state, including the nearby
City of Roanoke, are investigating the process for use by their
Social Service Departments and Court Systems. The Judges have
become very supportive of the program, and use it whenever
possible.
INDEXING INDENTIFIERS
List 5 words or phrases that best de-
scribe your program and can be used
to index your program. These words
should be different than those used
in your program title.
For example, a program in which a county contracted with a city to
provide low interest renovation housing loans to low and moderate
income home owners might consist of the following identifiers:
(I) Low Interest Housing Loans
(2) Housin Rehabilitation
', Substan eterioratin Housin
Intergovernmental Partnership _
(j) Divorce
(2) Child Support
(3) Courts
(4) Social Workers
(5) ~lisitation
1990 ENTRY FORM
COUNTY: County o f Roanoke
Note: ~TACo member caundes only.
POPULATION:
75,000
STATE: Virginia
$111,365,879
1989 COUNTY BUDGET:
TITLE OF PROGRAM TO BE CONSIDERED FOR ACHIEVEMEN'T' AWARD
(Ptease limo title to 60 duracsers. Do not itrcitrde county name in the program title. lydicate the title o[ the program to be coruidered for an Adrievc
men Award using the enact wording you would liloe w appear an the certificate slwuld your entry win.)
Comprehensive Health Investment Project
CATEGORIES Entries must be made in the following categories. Check only ONE category for this entry.
O Community Development
O Computerization
O Criminal Justice
O Community Services
0 County Administration and Management
O Drunken Driving Deterrence and Seat Belt Safety
O Employment and Training
D Energy and Environment
0 Fiscal Management and Use of Federal or State Funds
® Health
O Human Services
O Juvenile Justice
O Land Use and Land Planning
O Labor Issues and Employee Benefits
O Mental Health
O Media Relations
O Older Americans
0 Parks and Recreation
O Public Safety/Fmergency Management
^ Rural Programs
O Substance Abuse Control and Initiatives
O Transportation
^ Taxation and Finance
O Youth Programs
NOTE: Our list includes two general categories -Human Services and Community Services. We are looking for the
following information under those categories:
HUMAN SERVICES -food assistance prognarr-s;providing food/shelter for the homeless; programs to improve the servict
administration of welfare or general assistance programs; quality control in welfare assistance programs; the provision c
social services such as family counseling and childcare; improvements inthe management/administration ofhttman service
programs.
COIVIIVIUNTTY SERVICES -programs that make improvements in the county's infraswettue, public services such a
sanitation, fire, police, etc. (innovations or improved services in any of these areas are acceptable); programs promoting t~
enhancement or betterment of the community; programs designed to give citizens more input in county government.
Name, title, mailing address and phone number of county`s Name, title, department, division, mailing address and phor
Chief Elected Official- the county's board chair, president, nttmbex of the program contact- a person able to provide
or elected county official- and his or her signature author- more information to inquiring juristictions. The division
izing this entry. must be speciFied.
Richard W. Robers
Name:
Title: Chairman of the Board
Address: PO Box 2 9 8 0 0
Margaret Lee Hagan, M.D.
Name:
Title: Director, Alleghany Health
Departmen . Health Department
Division: ° ivision
City: Roanoke Staff: Va . Address: P . 0 . Box
Zip Code: 24018 -Phone: 703-772-2005
City: Vinton State: Va.
Signature' Zip Cie; 2 417 9_ phone: (7 0~ 8 5 7- 7 8 0 0
EACH ENTRY MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH A PHOTOCOPY OF THE ENTIRE APPLICATION
PROBLEIyI/CONCERN (continued)
3) Maximization of local health departments for dental, pharmacy,
immunizations, WIC/nutrition, laboratory and follow-up services.
nutrition and parent education to
4) Provision of health,
strengthen the parental role aonn. skills to enhance the child's
development, health and educat i ent m rEmeaiy ~ problem ~ to address the
SOLUTION (Describe the stops that were taken by the county/deparun
concern. Explain how the program's objectives were met)
In May, 1987, several people met to discuss possible solutions
to this problem. The group included the Director of the Roanoke
County Health Department, and r enc es and the business P legal and
private sector, human service ag
religious community. These individuals formed what is now called
the CHIP Coordinating Council.
The Coordinating Council developed the plan and objectives
ro ect and in January of 1988, initial funding was
for the CHIP p j
received from the Maternal and~Child Health988Y'`~When the kinitial
The project became operational in June~ro ect staff were hired.
physician providers were enlisted and p j
Before the end of June, the first children were enrolled in CHIP.
Several steps were taken to meet the objectiv~ v der network
itself. The first was the establishmeV to dentists. The Block
consisting of 213 physicians and 3 p
Grant funds are used to reimburse the physicians and dentists at
Medicaid rates.
The second was the recrumem ublic health nurses and auproject
nurse coordinator, two part ti p
secretary.
Concurrently, the Coordinating Council focused on strategies
for long range planning to sustain the project s fuartreiersl in9the
the local Community Action Agency, one of the p
development of CHIP, received a 4 year Kellogg Foundation grant.
This funding allowed CHIP to enhance its services through the
addition of parent involvement, education in child growth and
development, and support services, including transportation,
g The Kellogg funds
employment training, and a toy lendin library. ublic
also enabled the project to increase anent involvement specialist,
health nurses, 5 outreach workers, a p
secretary and a van driver. The project now operates through eight
locations in the Roanoke area.
1990 PROGRAM SUMMARY
RESULTS (continucd)
was provided by public health nurses was an important influence in
their acceptance of CHIP children.
the first full year of operation
Quantitatively, during the project reached its
October 1, 1988 to September 30, 1989,
initial goal for enrollment six months prior tCHIPs enrolled a304
From October 1, 1988 until June 30, 1989,
During this period of time, several indicators were
children. ro ress of interventions. The project
selected to monitor the p g eS, Eighty-five
achieved an 85~ immunization rate across all ag
percent of the children enrolled rec 100$ of the children have
appropriate for their age. Additionally,
24 hour access to a primary care physician and are assigned to a
ublic health nurse. The nurses riate communi ywresourcesination
p helping link to approp
of care by
Currently, the project has an enrollment of 500 ulationrthe
This enrollment represents roughly 10~ of the target p p
project eventually hopes to serve.
INDEXING INDENTIFIERS
List 5 words or phrases that best de-
scnbeyour program and can be used
to index your program. These words
should be different than those used
in your program title.
For e~cample, a program in which a county contracted with a city to
provide low interest renovation housing loans to low and moderate
income home owners might consist of the following identifiers:
(l) L.ow Interest HOLS;nv L~anS -
(2) Housin Rehabilitation
Substan terioratin Housin
Inter¢overnmental Part~ixshio _
(1) Public-Private Partnership
(2) Primary Health Care
3 Care Coordination
(4) Famil -Centered Care
($) Parent Involvement
1990 ENTRY FORM _J
Roanoke County
COUNTY: Nae: VACo member counties only.
Virginia
STATE:
POPULATION: 7 5.0 0 0
1989 COUNTY BUDGET: ~ 111 , 3 6 5, 8 7 9
TITLE OF PROGRAM TO BE CONSIDERED FOR ACHIEVEMENT AWARD
(Please limit title to 60 characters. Ib not iadude ~Y tuune in the program title. Itdicatte the title of the ptvgtam w be aonsidasd fa an Acttieva
meat Award using the euct wording yat wand like to appear on the certificate sltoald yaw emy win.)
Landfill Citizens' Advisory Committee
CATEGORIES Entries must be made in the following categories. Check only ONE category for this entry.
0 Community Development
0 Computetizadon
O Criminal Justice
O Community Services
O County Administration and Management
O Drunken Driving Deterrence and Seat Belt Safety
O Employment and Training
Its Energy and Environment
O Fiscal Management and Use of Federal or State Funds
O Health
O Human Services
O Juvenile Justice
O Land Use and Land Planning
O Labor Issues and Employee Benefits
O Mental Health
O Media Relations
O Older Americans
0 Parks and Recreation
O Public Safety/Fsrrergency Management
0 Rural Programs
O Substance Abuse Control and Initiatives
O Transportation
O Taxation and Finance
O Youth Programs
NOTE: Our list includes two general categories -Human Services and Commuunity Services. We are looking for the
following information corder those categories:
HUMAN SERVICES -food assistanceprograms;providing food/shelter for the homeless; programs to improve the service
administration of welfare or general assistance programs; quality convol in welfare assistance programs; the provision c
social services such as family counseling and childcare; improvements in the managemenVadministradon of human service
programs.
COMMUNITY SERVICES -programs that make improvements in the county's infrastructure, public services such a
sanitation, fire, police. etc. (innovations a improved services in any of these areas are acceptarble); programs promoting ih
enhancement or betterment of the community; programs designed to give citizens more input in county government.
Name. title, mailing address and phone number of county's
Chief Elected Official- the county's board chair, president,
or elected county official- and his or her signature author-
izingthisentry.
Name: Richard W. Robers
,I,~: airman o e oar
Address: P . 0 . Box
C• Roanoke Ste; Va .
Name, title, department, division, mailing address and phor
nttmbex of the progratrt contact- a person able to provide
more information W inquiring jtrristictions. The division
must be specified.
Name: John Hubbard
,I,~: ssis an oun y minis ra
ommuni y ervices an e
~~~` Solid Waste Management
~~~ P.O. Box 29800
tty Address:
Zip Code: 24018 phone: 703-7 2-2005
City: Roanoke Stagy. Va
S, ~. Zip Code: 2 4 018 Phone: ~7 0 3~ 7 7 2 - 2 0 71
tgna
EACH RY MUST BE SUB ITTED WITH A PHOTOCOPY OF THE ENTIRE APPLICATION
l 1990 PROGRAM SUMMARY 1
PROBLEM/CONCERN (continued)
and increased the pressure on County government to alleviate as
much of the burden as possible.
SOLUTION (Describe the seeps that were talcai by the county/department oo remedy the problem or to address the
concern. Explain how the program's objectives were met)
The Board of Supervisors appointed a Landfill Citizen's
Advisory Committee (LCAC), made up of residents of each of the six
areas under consideration. Some of the most vocal opponents agreed
to serve on the Committee, and it was staffed by the Department of
Community Services and Development. The Committee spent a great
deal of time reviewing literature on solid waste management and the
operation of landfills, and helped the consultant re-weight the
matrix to increase the strength of community concerns.
Two sites were ultimately chosen as being suitable for
forwarding to the state for the permit process, and more citizens
from those areas were added to the LCAC. The Committee then
drafted permit conditions and operating policies, which were
approved by the Planning Commission, and ultimately adopted almost
in their entirety by the Board of Supervisors.
The permit conditions include rules on the types of waste
which will be accepted, the operating hours, environmental
monitoring, screening and buffering, site security and fire
protection.
The operating policies addressed the two issues most important
to citizens - groundwater contamination (most residents in the
areas have their own wells) and devaluation of property. The
Roanoke County Resource Authority, which will be operating the
landfill, and consists of the Board of Supervisors, will provide
County water, at no charge, to any household or business within a
protected area, in the event that a well becomes contaminated.
This protection extends to heirs of the original resident, and
subsequent purchasers of the property will continue receiving
County water, although at the prevailing rate.
Further, in the event that appraisals and sale prices indicate
that a piece of property was devalued by location of the landfill,
the Resource Authority will reimburse the owner for the amount
which was lost.
These permit conditions and operating policies have helped the
residents of the two areas to accept the location of the landfill
and have assured them that the landfill will be operated in the
least burdensome and most environmentally safe manner possible.
3
1990 PROGRAM SUMMARY
.,
RESULTS (continucd)
and implemented their suggestions. The citizens recognized the
need for government to plan for the greater good of the whole,
sometimes to the detriment of a particular group.
Both the County and the citizens have also realized the need
for increased recycling. The County has the first curbside recycl-
ing program in the state, but has been unable to expand the program
to all areas. Citizen interest resulting from the landfill siting
process has now allowed for some expansion of this program, and has
encouraged voluntary recycling by various groups.
INDEXING INDENTIF"IEERS
List S words or phrases that best de-
scn~be your program and can be used
to index your program. These words
should be different than those used
in your program title.
For example, a program in which a county contracted with a city to
provide low interest renovation housing loans to low and moderate
income home owners might consist of the following identifiers:
(I)Low Interest Housing Loans
(2) Housin Rehabilitation
Substanda terioratinA Housintt
governmental Partnership
(1) Citizen Involvement in Problem Solving
(2) Landfill Siting
(3) Solid Waste Management
(4) Environmental Issues
(5) Public/Private Problem Solving